Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2018, 01:40:42 AM »
Quote
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?

Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits from the spectral analysis that he holds so near to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.

In order to form H2O, there must be one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen atoms, so wouldn't that mean that there would have to be more than trace amounts if it were to be used?

That is, the amount of hydrogen that can be used to make H2O is limited to twice the amount of oxygen. So trace amounts of oxygen means trace amounts of H2O at best. Meanwhile the rest of that hydrogen is not taking part in that process and instead would just be consumed - fire isn't very patient.

Trace amounts of oxygen in the Sun doesn't mean that oxygen isn't being continuously supplied to the Sun and quickly combined and released. It just means the oxygen is being quickly used up and replaced (by outside sources) at the same rate so that a constant trace amount of oxygen remains detectable at any given point in time.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Online StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2018, 02:11:58 AM »
Quote
98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?

Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with hydrogen to form h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits that according to the spectral analysis that he holds so dear to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.

Yes, trace amounts of oxygen does exist on the Sun. That is the whole point I am making - TRACE AMOUNTS. There is not enough oxygen to sustain OH combustion. If it isn't there, it can't be used by the Sun. I feel bad that you have been so let down by the education system. Were you home schooled by religious parents? Your viewpoints line up. Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing. A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2018, 04:36:36 AM »
Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"

If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"

It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2018, 05:19:09 AM »
Pickel -- You clearly didn't even read about thermolysis. I'm not communicating effectively because I'm trying to explain rather complicated scientific concepts to one who obviously has no knowledge whatsoever in even basic physics and chemistry. There is no such thing as water in the Sun; no molecules can exist at such high temperatures. If you posit that something else is transferring energy to the Sun by chemical means, it would require a massive amount of matter to move into the Sun, and we'd see it get more massive (you can't extract water from the Sun because it is chemically separated long ago -- the equilibrium would be on the side of the reactants even at the surface temperature of the Sun).

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2018, 06:33:13 PM »
StinkyOne,

Quote
Yes, trace amounts of oxygen does exist on the Sun. That is the whole point I am making - TRACE AMOUNTS. There is not enough oxygen to sustain OH combustion. If it isn't there, it can't be used by the Sun.

As I have already typed, a trace amount of oxygen is detected. That just means the rest of the oxygen has already combined with hydrogen and has been released and escapes detection.

Quote
I feel bad that you have been so let down by the education system.

Don't feel bad. I have always been a straight-A student with a 4.0 GPA.

Quote
Were you home schooled by religious parents? Your viewpoints line up.

Not at all.

Quote
Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.

So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?

Quote
A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!

May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2018, 06:35:49 PM »
Douglips,

Quote
Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"

Correct. It was somewhat ambiguous though, which I pointed out. But I answered that combustion of hydrogen and oxygen was the fuel used as energy for the Sun to exist. Some on here just assumed that I meant that the Sun is a closed system and that fuel for the Sun is limited to the fuel already inside the Sun.

Quote
If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"

No. I have always been consistent here. I originally answered that the Sun is the result of hydrogen-oxygen combustion. People wanted to know about it (or misrepresented what I typed), so I added more specific information. I was not committing ad hoc fallacies if that's what you're implying.

Quote
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.

You need to specify exactly what you mean. "I" need to be providing more energy at equilibrium? See what I mean? I can't understand what it is that you're trying to convey. If it's not too much trouble, may you please rephrase what you typed in a more articulate way so I could reply in a more appropriate way?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 06:39:30 PM by Pickel B Gravel »
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2018, 06:41:37 PM »
JohnAdams1145,

How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress.

I think I have answered quite nicely here, regardless of your attempt to resort to using strawman fallacies by suggesting that I proposed the Sun performs its own electrolysis. The facts still remain: the earth used to have more atmospheric hydrogen, the earth contains over 70% of h2o, and h2o is a byproduct of oxygen-hydrogen combustion. Thus, it is logical to conclude that earth's h2o is the product of hydrogen-oxygen combustion, and this fits in nicely with a flat earth. The earth is also the only planet with large bodies of water, which gives further credence to the idea that the earth contains the Sun within earth's atmosphere. Now, isn't that a better conclusion than "comets deposited water onto the earth"? You know, on a side note, it makes no sense how comets can even still exist if the solar system is billions of years old. They would be gone by now due to the second law of thermodynamics. But round earthers make up an excuse like the oort cloud (that has never been proven) and then they accuse us of speculating and making things up to fit into our worldview? The nerve!

Quote
Pickel -- You clearly didn't even read about thermolysis.

Of course I have. What about it?

Quote
I'm not communicating effectively because I'm trying to explain rather complicated scientific concepts to one who obviously has no knowledge whatsoever in even basic physics and chemistry.

Or because you don't use the right words...

Quote
There is no such thing as water in the Sun; no molecules can exist at such high temperatures.

I never proposed that water is in the Sun. Pay attention, please. Or is this another strawman attempt of yours? I suggested that h2o is formed by the Sun and that the hydrogen and oxygen are quickly replaced with New oxygen and hydrogen that are drawn in by the Sun to be used as fuel.

Quote
If you posit that something else is transferring energy to the Sun by chemical means, it would require a massive amount of matter to move into the Sun, and we'd see it get more massive

May I ask what are you basing that on?

Quote
(you can't extract water from the Sun because it is chemically separated long ago -- the equilibrium would be on the side of the reactants even at the surface temperature of the Sun).

That's assuming that the Sun is really as hot as is claimed by round earthers. Also, what do you mean "you can't extract"? Are you suggesting that I have proposed that h2o is in the Sun but remains h2o and thus is able to be extracted by humans? Because I never suggested that.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

*

Offline PickYerPoison

  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • The Earth's not flat, just pre-pubescent.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2018, 07:16:04 PM »
Quote
Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.

So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?

This isn't the time nor the place but someday I would be very interested in hearing the reasoning behind your Holocaust denial. Not debating it, just hearing it.

Quote
A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!

May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.

I've noticed that the assumption about the scientific method here seems to be that a hypothesis being wrong means the experiment results get thrown out. This is not the case - instead, follow-up experiments are done to determine why the results were different than expected. Typically the hypothesis is there to provide a clear way to look at the results. Additionally, you can't prove something wrong by failing to prove it right - that goes against both the scientific and zetetic methods.
Remember that "The truth is out there" as long as you are willing to look!

Online StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 590
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2018, 08:13:05 PM »
As I have already typed, a trace amount of oxygen is detected. That just means the rest of the oxygen has already combined with hydrogen and has been released and escapes detection.

Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

Quote
Don't feel bad. I have always been a straight-A student with a 4.0 GPA.

Yeah, that doesn't mean much if your school is failing you.

Quote
So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?

Yeeaahhhhh...zero evidence for the holocaust. Not the appropriate forum, but lets just say you might need to be careful who you're listening to.

Quote
May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.

If you work from the premise that the Earth is round, and your experimental data confirms your premise, you were correct. Take something like DirecTV. They are a private company that uses satellites to broadcast TV. If their satellites didn't work because the Earth was flat, they would know about it. No amount of presupposition fixes that.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline KAL_9000

  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • A logical fallacy is a flaw in your reasoning.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2018, 09:48:27 PM »
JohnAdams1145,

How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress.



Let's pick apart this paragraph:

"How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress."

Calling yourself a "poor little girl" is a way of making yourself look cute so he'll back off. Second of all, you're right, he should stop using ad hominem attacks. However, just because he's doing that doesn't make his argument invalid.

Advancing Flat Earth Theory is not scientific in any way. Science involves discarding and/or modifying theories that have been proven wrong, not ignoring and faking evidence to support a flawed hypothesis.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

*

Offline KAL_9000

  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • A logical fallacy is a flaw in your reasoning.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2018, 09:52:53 PM »
StinkyOne,

Quote
Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.

So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?


There's a metric crapton of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."

"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."

More evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors

Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2018, 10:06:36 PM »
Douglips,

Quote
Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"

Correct. It was somewhat ambiguous though, which I pointed out. But I answered that combustion of hydrogen and oxygen was the fuel used as energy for the Sun to exist. Some on here just assumed that I meant that the Sun is a closed system and that fuel for the Sun is limited to the fuel already inside the Sun.
Sure. And then you suggested that the water that is the result of the sun's combustion is removed (or flows off of) the sun, and that it is hydrolyzed somewhere else, so that the hydrogen and oxygen are then ready to be taken back onboard the sun for combustion.
Quote

Quote
If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"

No. I have always been consistent here. I originally answered that the Sun is the result of hydrogen-oxygen combustion. People wanted to know about it (or misrepresented what I typed), so I added more specific information. I was not committing ad hoc fallacies if that's what you're implying.

I see it slightly differently. People pointed out that what you are claiming can't occur in the sun, so you suggested that it occurs outside the sun. I then said, perhaps clumsily, that if such a system were to exist it would also have problems.

You might not be committing ad hoc fallacies, maybe the entire time you have had a model of how water is removed from the sun and added back to it, and that's fine. What I'm saying is that such a model also has problems, and if you propose solutions to those problems you will likely have other problems to face. It doesn't have to be an ad hoc fallacy, it's just that the model you have posited has problems at the level to which you have explained it.

Quote

Quote
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.

You need to specify exactly what you mean. "I" need to be providing more energy at equilibrium? See what I mean? I can't understand what it is that you're trying to convey. If it's not too much trouble, may you please rephrase what you typed in a more articulate way so I could reply in a more appropriate way?

Sorry, let me rephrase.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd the sky hydrolysis system would need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.



Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #32 on: January 13, 2018, 12:13:44 AM »
Stinkyone,

Quote
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up". The same is true for gravity being some sort of distinct force, which has never been proven or produced in a lab. I can buy magnets and electrical appliances but no gravity-based technology? Maybe the reason why I can't is because gravity doesn't exist?
Have you ever considered that maybe just maybe that much of what you know about the Sun is wrong and based on faulty logic and erroneous premises?

Quote
Yeah, that doesn't mean much if your school is failing you.

What about my 1595 SAT score?

Quote
Yeeaahhhhh...zero evidence for the holocaust. Not the appropriate forum, but lets just say you might need to be careful who you're listening to.

I'm simply looking at the "evidence" through historical context and listening to all holocaust survivors. You're listening to the conclusions based on the investigations carried out by allied nations and on the claims from anti-Nazi rebels who obtained and made public (allegedly) Nazi documents and testimony concerning the holocaust. The question is--and this is where critical thinking comes into play--can you trust them? What about the holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden? You're not looking at all sides. Mass hysteria inside labor camps doesn't translate to evidence for gassing of Jews.

Quote
If you work from the premise that the Earth is round, and your experimental data confirms your premise, you were correct. Take something like DirecTV. They are a private company that uses satellites to broadcast TV. If their satellites didn't work because the Earth was flat, they would know about it. No amount of presupposition fixes that.

And what exactly is the "experimental data" that supports a round earth and the method used to obtain this "experimental data" based on? They're made to fit the round earth model so that the results confirm a round earth! Theoretical calculations are not proof of anything.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2018, 12:16:59 AM »
Kal_9000,

Quote
Calling yourself a "poor little girl" is a way of making yourself look cute so he'll back off.

That was never my intention. If I wanted sympathy, I would've mentioned my recent undergoing of chemotherapy for cancer. But I didn't mention that. Do you know why? Because I don't want pity. No, I don't want him to back off. If I did, I would have politely told him to back off.

Quote
Second of all, you're right, he should stop using ad hominem attacks. However, just because he's doing that doesn't make his argument invalid. 

Then why would he use ad hominem attacks if his arguments were valid? Ad hominem attacks are used by individuals losing an argument; it's their last weapon of defense.

Quote
Advancing Flat Earth Theory is not scientific in any way. Science involves discarding and/or modifying theories that have been proven wrong, not ignoring and faking evidence to support a flawed hypothesis.

That's what we are doing here: modifying flat earth theory and deciding what works and what does not work. and who's faking and ignoring evidence? Do we sometimes ignore claims? Yes. But evidence? And advancing flat earth IS scientific. We haven't had the kind of support and funding that round earth theory has received over the last few hundreds of years. That's the only reason why the spherical earth model seems like the better choice to most.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

*

Offline supaluminus

  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Hi. I'm supe.
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2018, 12:21:19 AM »
Stinkyone,

Quote
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".

They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.

You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.

Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.
When an honest man discovers that he is mistaken, either he will cease being mistaken...

... or he will cease being honest.

 - a loyal slave to reason and doubt

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2018, 12:24:50 AM »
Kal_9000,

Quote
There's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."

"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."

More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors

Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.

Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 02:05:19 AM by Pickel B Gravel »
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #36 on: January 13, 2018, 12:27:38 AM »
Douglips,

Quote
I see it slightly differently. People pointed out that what you are claiming can't occur in the sun, so you suggested that it occurs outside the sun.

The problem is I never said that electrolysis occurs in the Sun or that the Sun was a closed system. Show me where I typed that. People either assumed that is what I typed, which I then corrected them by adding specifics, or they intentionally resorted to strawman fallacies to misrepresent my position.

Quote
I then said, perhaps clumsily, that if such a system were to exist it would also have problems.

Such as...?

Quote
You might not be committing ad hoc fallacies, maybe the entire time you have had a model of how water is removed from the sun and added back to it, and that's fine. What I'm saying is that such a model also has problems, and if you propose solutions to those problems you will likely have other problems to face. It doesn't have to be an ad hoc fallacy, it's just that the model you have posited has problems at the level to which you have explained it.

Please elaborate.

Quote
Sorry, let me rephrase.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd the sky hydrolysis system would need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.

What exactly are you basing that on?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 12:29:27 AM by Pickel B Gravel »
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #37 on: January 13, 2018, 12:35:24 AM »
Stinkyone,

Quote
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".

They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.

You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.

Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.

In other words: because the oort cloud and gravity fit in with the round earth worldview, they're acceptable. That is so biased! There is no evidence for gravity or the oort cloud. They're speculative and theoretical, but that's alright with round earthers because it helps the round earth worldview. But flat earth theorists are held to a different standard.
Hi y'all. I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE. That being said, I don't believe in a lot of "facts" (the quotations mean they're NOT actual facts) including evolution, the holocaust, and the globular earth HYPOTHESIS.

Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2018, 12:52:34 AM »
Stinkyone,

Quote
Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".

They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.

You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.

Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.

In other words: because the oort cloud and gravity fit in with the round earth worldview, they're acceptable. That is so biased! There is no evidence for gravity or the oort cloud. They're speculative and theoretical, but that's alright with round earthers because it helps the round earth worldview. But flat earth theorists are held to a different standard.
I would point to Cavendish for gravity proofs. But must admit ignorance on the oort cloud stuff, as I've largely fallen out of following astronomy.

As well though not "proof" per se, the equations for gravity DO properly explain planetary motion. So anything seeking to replace it should be able to explain them at least as well as I understand it.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2018, 07:24:09 PM »
Since we are on the topic of gravity, it should be interesting that Newton was a champion of disproving so many Aristotlean beliefs.  It would be weird that the concept of a flat earth has been ignored for millennium because of the refusal to challenge Aristotle and that gravity would be wrong too for the same reasons.  It is clear that Newton did not originate the law of gravity, as other scientists were also thinking there must be a way to prove the attraction decreases with distance and it is probably by the inverse of the square.  When Hooke approached Newton with the idea, Newton had stated it was not the square due to thought processes Newton had as a boy on his aunt's farm.  Newton did Zenetic research by watching the moon.  He figured that if the earth was not there, the moon would go straight.  But since it orbits the earth, the rate it is falling must equal the angular difference in the circle of orbit versus the straight line.  From this he calculated the force of gravity and found it not to be square of the distance.  Newton kept every piece of paper he wrote on.  When proving it to Hooke, they discovered an error made as a young boy and the rest is history.  Not much room for Aristotle to fit into this story. Basing the law of gravity by looking at the stuff out on the farm.