61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 11, 2018, 01:31:09 AM »

JohnAdams1145,

Pickel B. Gravel -- I seriously can't believe you don't understand the basic physics I'm trying to throw out here. Usually I refrain from saying this stuff, but you clearly haven't read what I've said carefully or you just lack even a layman's fundamental understanding of the world.

I think I don't understand what you're saying because you're not communicating effectively.

The Sun cannot be refueled by electrolysis because it takes at least the same amount of energy to get the oxygen back from the water than combusting the hydrogen and oxygen together gives. To put it even more simply, the fuel you suppose powers the Sun costs at least the same amount of energy to produce than it gives when it is burned. The Sun cannot gain energy by reversing a chemical reaction and then performing that same reaction. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.

Are you suggesting that I have proposed that natural electrolysis of h2o is powered by the Sun within the Sun? Because that is not what I have suggested. I have stated that the Sun collects available oxygen and hydrogen, combines them to produce h2o, and releases the h2o. The h2o is then separated by means of electrolysis outside of the Sun, where the two gases are once again absorbed by the Sun and combined into h2o.

The splitting of water in the Sun would not be performed by electrolysis. It would be due to thermolysis in the extremely high temperatures inside. The fact that you don't know that means that you don't really know how electrolysis works.

Same as above. When have I ever typed on here that electrolysis of h2o is produced IN the Sun? It sounds to me like you're resorting to a strawman fallacy here.

I am saying that the thermal energy of the hydrogen atoms is 1000x MORE ENERGY than you could get from combusting them with oxygen (even if you had an unlimited supply of oxygen), and even that's not enough to keep the Sun alive for more than 30 years. What's so hard to understand about this logic?

Your problem is assuming that my premise was that the Sun was a closed system that performed it's own electrolysis. That has never been my position.

PickYerPoison, you're right. The Sun doesn't have much oxygen at all, so it's implausible that it could be powered off the miniscule amount of oxygen there for any reasonable amount of time (we're effectively reducing the fuel to some 4% of the Sun's mass). But I've proven something far stronger than this: even the thermal energy of the hydrogen atoms (which is over 1000 times more than the energy you get from combusting each hydrogen with half an oxygen -- I apologize for a slight math error when I gave you the number of 180664 kJ / mol; it should be 361228, because that is the figure per mol of hydrogen atoms, while 286 kJ / mol is the figure per mol of hydrogen molecules) cannot sustain the Sun for more than 30 or so years. If we went with this so-called "genius girl"'s model, the Sun would barely last a year. I am as baffled as you that someone could even make us talk about combustion in the Sun. But this so-called "genius girl" insists that we can simply recycle the oxygen by reversing the very chemical reaction that we just performed and keep making free energy. And so we're stuck talking about it.

Because the oxygen is quickly combined with hydrogen and released as h2o. So not much oxygen is able to be detected in the Sun because it's been released.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 10, 2018, 07:17:22 PM »

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.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:51:46 PM »

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:43:31 PM »

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.

Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"

So then do you have an example of one NOT from a living being? A rock or something that has somehow naturally become a retro-reflector? Because otherwise yes, your claim requires something living to have bee/be on the moon. *That* is why the retro-reflector's are used as evidence of man on the moon. Because, as far as I'm aware, they don't occur through natural non-living means. Ergo, how are you not positing for life on the moon? Although you do seem to struggle with implication and reading between the lines from previous times we've discussed things, so not sure if this has occurred to you. If I'm wrong, please correct me/show me where. But if retro-reflectors only occur in nature in living things, and they exist on the moon, that must mean living things were/are on the moon. Or at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

You're relying on the appeal to ignorance fallacy when you limit natural retroreflectors to only living organisms.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:23:31 PM »

Spikily,

The flat earth means a planar earth. It doesn't mean a smooth earth. I don't know if you're being serious or are just resorting to strawman and the appeal to ridicule fallacies. Regardless, mountains and mountain-like geologic structures are simply the result of magmatic convection and rising magma that hardens.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hemispherical star differences?

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:17:14 PM »

I am curious, if a person in the northern hemisphere can observe Polaris, why can't a person in the southern hemisphere do the same if the Earth is flat?

Because the stars aren't light years away from us. They are atmospheric disturbances and objects suspended in the air. Can you see an airplane directly above Washington dc from los Angeles, California? The same applies to the stars.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:00:36 PM »

JohnAdams1145,

Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy.

Are you factoring in natural electrolysis that separates h2o to provide the Sun with reusable oxygen and hydrogen?

Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis).

Well, as I've said in past posts, I don't believe government space agencies are really space agencies. I believe they're a cover to embezzle money. Do you have analyses of the Sun from independent groups?

But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.

Are you factoring into your equation new recurrent supplies of hydrogen and oxygen provided by natural electrolysis of h2o?

So in your complete lack of understanding of physics and chemistry, you're going to throw out the law of conservation of energy? That law has been proven millions of times over because it applies in virtually everything we have today, from heat management to power distribution, etc. Electrolysis of H2O requires more energy than you get from burning the hydrogen and oxygen. You really can't be much of a genius if you don't even know that basic fact, proven in labs everywhere and industrial electrolysis. Otherwise I could create energy for free by setting up a loop (oh wait, that's your scheme here; I bet you don't know how nuclear fusion gets its energy).

Again, I'll say that the chemical energy is not anything compared to the thermal energy. You should study some basic chemistry before invoking terms like "electrolysis" which you clearly don't understand on even a basic level, and I've only taken introductory physics (although at quite a respectable institution). The enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen with oxygen is -286 kJ / mol. The thermal energy of the hydrogen at 27 million K is 180664 kJ / mol. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when you invoke electrolysis.


You also have no idea what spectral analysis is if you think only space agencies can conduct it. You must be suffering from some extreme Dunning-Kruger right here. Literally anyone can do spectral analysis just by looking at the light spectrum. If you have no idea how to do this, you can do it with a CD (for ordinary light sources; I don't know if this particular technique works with the Sun): https://petapixel.com/2015/10/30/you-can-use-a-cd-to-view-the-color-spectrum-of-your-light-sources/. In any case, you should be careful about eye damage. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines to see how we determine the elements in the Sun using dark lines in the spectrum (the frequency of the light is related to the emission/absorption of light through electron energy levels).

What is it that you're trying to convey exactly? Are you asserting that not enough thermal energy of the Sun (if the Sun is oxyhydrogen combustion) could sustain the internal temperature requisite of the combustion to occur and persist? Because if that is what you originally tried to convey, then I'll tell you what I told Boodysaspie: you should have phrased it that way.
And, no, I didn't use the term "electrolysis" incorrectly, nor did I use it to explain away thermal energy necessary to sustain the Sun. You just weren't articulate when typing your original comment. I thought you meant how the Sun is refueled. Please rephrase your point in a more articulate way.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question regarding the spotlight sun theory

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:16:21 AM »

What's there to explain? The farther away light is according to the inverse square law, the dimmer it becomes. In addition, as you have said, perspective would decrease the size of the Sun and bring it down to a lower perceived altitude. Not to mention that objects in the foreground (mountains, forests, buildings, clouds, fog) would further obscure the Sun, and different atmospheric condition would bend and manipulate sunlight.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 09, 2018, 11:10:08 PM »

Pickel,

I've decided that it's made out of gold because it's yellow and shiny, and that's good enough for me.

You're using the appeal to ridicule logical fallacy. Why? Because youcant dispute what I have typed as a plausible flat earth model of the Sun.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 09, 2018, 11:03:14 PM »

JohnAdams1145,

Don't worry. I do, and at 27 million K, the thermal energy of the hydrogen is far more than any chemical energy you could get out of it. I did an analysis of the thermal energy and a 64 mile wide Sun would die in 31 years if it were just living off the thermal energy.

Are you factoring in natural electrolysis that separates h2o to provide the Sun with reusable oxygen and hydrogen?

Pickel, hydrogen needs oxygen to burn. It's not going to happen in the Sun, which doesn't contain much oxygen (confirmed by spectral analysis).

Well, as I've said in past posts, I don't believe government space agencies are really space agencies. I believe they're a cover to embezzle money. Do you have analyses of the Sun from independent groups?

But as I said anyway, at 27 million K, hydrogen has far more thermal energy than chemical energy, and even with an overestimation of the density of the hydrogen in the Sun and therefore an overestimation of the thermal energy of the Sun, it can't even last for one person's lifetime.

Are you factoring into your equation new recurrent supplies of hydrogen and oxygen provided by natural electrolysis of h2o?

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: so this guy zooms into saturn & the ISS

« on: December 29, 2017, 11:53:55 PM »

does it just look spherical? or is it actually a sphere?

It is too blurry. To me it does not look like a sphere. It looks like an atmospheric disturbance of some sort. It could very well be in the earth's atmosphere the same way clouds and the northern lights are (only higher).

because wouldn't we also be a sphere?
wouldn't that make more sense?

Why? What makes you think the earth isn't something unique? I just don't understand how people can credulously conclude earth must be categorized as a planet or some other "space object" when it could be truly unique and distinct.

this guy zooms into the "iss" flying very fast 'around' the earth

Why are you sure it's not a plane or some misidentified object? Or a balloon?

would you be saying, it's kind of making a circle around the flat plane? or is this more or less proof that it's flying around the earth? not in a circle above a flat plane?

IF the iss is indeed a real "satellite and not a balloon hoax, it wouldn't matter. To answer your questions, it depends on the person and what he believes. I have no problem with a satellite spinning around the flat earth. I don't necessarily accept it, but it doesn't contradict flat earth.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 29, 2017, 09:54:49 PM »

Boodysaspie,

Let me elaborate on my previous comment. You asked "what is the source of the Sun's energy?". That is not the same as asking "how can the sun produce enough heat to warm the earth?". I answered your question well regardless if you were asking about the Sun's output or input energy (though I assumed you were asking about the input energy). If you were asking how the sun can produce enough output energy to warm the earth, you should have phrased it that way. Because not all flat earth theorists necessarily believe the sun is the only heat source.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 29, 2017, 09:37:10 PM »

Boodysaspie, I only mentioned one theory. Regardless, let me respond to some things that you typed:

1) Hydrogen burns with a blue flame which is almost invisible in daylight. Hydrogen "sunlight" isn't light.

In theory. In reality, impurities can cause it to be yellow.

"The flame may appear yellow if there are impurities in the air like dust or sodium" ( https://www.h2tools.org/bestpractices/h2introduction/hazards/flames).

2) Hydrogen does not radiate much infra red energy but it does radiate ultra-violet energy. Therefore it isn't hot, but it will cause sunburn. Think about how a sunbed works.

And...? It doesn't dispute the theory. You still admit some infrared energy is emitted. You simply asked "what is the source of the Sun's energy?". I found this to be ambiguous and wasn't sure whether you were you asking about the Sun's input energy or about its output (radiant) energy. I assumed you were asking about the Sun's input energy, and I offered one theory to explain how the sun can thrive. If you were asking about the output energy / heat of the sun, I would have then possibly answered differently.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: December 29, 2017, 08:03:36 PM »

Stinkyone,

You stated the dome stops the Sun from rising. According to observation, the Sun is not deformed in any way (i.e. spreading out along the surface of the dome), therefore there is not dome preventing its rise.

Actually, I said a dome or a type of forcefield. What observations? May you please cite a few. Regardless, as I've said, properties at the top of the dome may be different. Fire in zero gravity becomes spherical. You are assuming the properties of fire are constant when I cited a NASA article that says otherwise.

The Sun's distance is not receding from us, therefore it is not rising as you stated.

Strawman fallacy. I NEVER said the Sun is rising. I said the Sun naturally rises due to plasma being the least dense of the four states of matter.

The Sun holds its shape due to gravity

.

That's according to the spherical earth view, which I do not subscribe to.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: December 29, 2017, 04:24:12 PM »

Stinkyone,

The most obvious question is why doesn't the hydrogen spread out when it hits the dome??

What do you mean exactly? Why doesn't the fire spread out? I'm not necessarily arguing that the hydrogen is concentrated in one area. I cannot say for sure what prevents the Sun from spreading out.

Flat earth theory hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth theory has had throughout history. So, we haven't had the opportunity to advance our theory the way spherical earth theorists have.

Regardless, one explanation could be that the properties at the top of the dome are different. According to NASA (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/21aug_flameballs ), fire behaves differently in "zero gravity". Excerpts from the article:

"Flames in low-gravity tend to spread slowly..."

"once ignited and stabilized, their size remains constant."

"Unlike ordinary flames, which expand greedily when they need more fuel, flame balls let the oxygen and fuel come to them."

So, the topmost part of the dome may be less affected by the universal acceleration. Thus, the sun is able to form into a sphere, let the fuel come to it instead of expanding, and remain a constant size.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: December 29, 2017, 07:16:37 AM »

Boots,

How do you know this?

Ignore the "helium/" part. Auto correct changed it without me being aware of it. But to answer your question, I don't "know". But according to things that I do know, it makes sense. It is believed hydrogen was more abundant in the earth's atmosphere in the past. It is known that h2o makes up over 70 percent of the earth's surface. Hydrogen is a flammable gas and when combined with oxygen, combustion occurs and h20 is produced. So, this hydrogen-fueled Sun fits in nicely what is known about earth.

What stops it from continuing to rise until it becomes a tiny speck and eventually fades from view altogether?

The dome/forcefield that surrounds the earth.

How do you know it isn't hydrogen and helium or some other mixture of gases that burns at a lower temp?

For me, the features of the moon is indicative of a solid object as opposed to an object composed of plasma.

How do you know the northern lights are caused by disturbances in the atmosphere?

They take place in the atmosphere. Even spherical earth proponents accept it's caused by atmospheric disturbances (radioactive particles from the Sun bombarding the earth's atmosphere).

I mean, I could just take your word for it, but I think for myself and all that - so you won't catch me just accepting big sweeping claims such as these unless you have some proof that this is actually the case!

I concur. Proof is necessary for BOTH sides. No one knows anything for sure. All we do have are man-made models that fit the observed phenomena. Those models don't necessarily reflect what is reality; they just allow us to make sense of reality and conceptualize what is observed. However, I want to know what reality really is outside of the human understanding version of it. That is why I reject the spherical earth model.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy - why NASA?

« on: December 29, 2017, 06:22:52 AM »

All space agencies are scams. They are covers as a way to embezzle money. Look at the mars photo of an OBVIOUS lemming. Or the many other anomalous NASA mars images that show earthly objects. Many will say that these things are optical illusions, and that is their opinion. I can agree that some are optical illusions, but not all.

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 29, 2017, 06:14:52 AM »

One theory is that the sun is simply a ball of fire that continues to thrive because of available hydrogen gas, which is flammable and provides the essential fuel. It's the result of chemical reaction / combustion. This explanation explains known things about the earth. For example, during combustion, hydrogen is combined with oxygen. We know that the earth's surface is around 70 to 76 % h2o, and it is believed earth's atmosphere had more hydrogen in the past.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why would we be lied to about the shape of the Earth?

« on: December 29, 2017, 05:29:05 AM »

So what is the motive for the government or whoever to lie about the shape of the Earth?
Like what benefits does it give them?
I can't see any. It makes no sense to me.

No one is lying about the shape of the earth. The governments are lying about space exploration, and they use the flat earth model (fake earth images and such) because it's the most popular theory of earth's shape and is widely accepted by most. If they didn't, most would not believe NASA and other space agencies are sending things in space.

Why not just say it was flat?

They probably don't know it's flat. The public is convinced the earth is round. So, NASA and others present the earth as as a sphere.

Also, whoever is lying to us would have had to have started hundreds of years ago because even around the time Christopher Columbus was alive, it was commonly accepted that the Earth was round.

No. No one is intentionally lying about the earth's shape. There are and has always been two competing views of the earth's shape. The spherical earth proponents managed to gain influence in society and indoctrinate people for the last few hundreds of years. NASA is simply faking space exploration as a way for powerful and influential people to embezzle money and they use the earth model that most already accept.

(It's a false myth that he proved the Earth was round, everyone knew already)

Of course he didn't prove the earth was round. And no one is saying the spherical earth model didn't exist prior to him. That doesn't prove the earth is round.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side of the Earth?

« on: December 29, 2017, 04:53:25 AM »

Since no one has ever gone there, we can only speculate. But it is likely that the opposite side is molten due to the accumulation of pressure caused by universal acceleration.