1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Composition of the sun
« on: April 30, 2015, 05:15:09 PM »I believe that the sun is made up of almost pure phlogiston.What is phlogiston? What evidence is there for it?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I believe that the sun is made up of almost pure phlogiston.What is phlogiston? What evidence is there for it?
Okay, if I found a video, made by amateur near space balloonists, that showed the earth, and then a white contrast change that made the earth look white and let you see the stars, what would you say?If I, in fact, posted a picture of the earth that had stars behind it, would you claim it was shopped?Given that it should be technically impossible to take such a picture (as Jura reminded us after my prompt), I would first ask for clarification on how the image was produced. If you could offer such an explanation, I'd have to evaluate it.
Assuming you have no explanation, CGI would be the most likely scenario.
The exposure settings needed to give clarity to the earth in the pictures would not pick up the fainter stars, to pick them up you would have a completely white'd out earth, basic camera knowledge surely?I'm well aware of that. Now that we've established the necessary absence of the most obvious (photographic) evidence, how exactly is Mostlyharmless proposing that "you can see stars behind the earth because there are stars behind the earth."
Has Mostlyharmless personally seen the stars behind the Earth, or did he see a photograph that (due to basic camera characteristics, as you helpfully pointed out!) couldn't possibly exist without CGI? In what capacity, exactly, can "you" see the stars behind the Earth?
Let us, for a moment, compare the round earth and flat earth view of what is happening: RET) you can see stars behind the earth because there are stars behind the earth.I'm not a FE'r, the ISS photos are fake, according to them. But the horizon is an illusion, from refraction.How could refraction let you see a clear boundary, with blackness on the other side? That's just not how it works...
That's exactly how it works.
I'm not a FE'r, the ISS photos are fake, according to them. But the horizon is an illusion, from refraction.How could refraction let you see a clear boundary, with blackness on the other side? That's just not how it works...
The general idea is that air gives the illusion of limited vision due to curvature.As in, the clear boundary in the video of a line which has the earth on one side, and the blackness of space on the other, is somehow an illusion?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay, so, in an ret world, the pilot's navigation system, assuming that the world is ret, would, in a flight from south America to Australia, fly south and slightly West until it arrived there. On the other hand, if the world were in fact flat, the best route would be to fly directly north until reaching Australia. This doesn't happen, because otherwise people would realise they were flying over the Americas, the North Pole, siberia and China, and finally the rest of Australia, before landing on the south of the country.Whether it is ad populum or not is irrelevant, as the point is that the navigation system used would be RET. This fact is relevant, because "where the navigation system tells it to go" would be a direct (ish) route in RET terms.Substantiate your claims.Abbs what is necroing?The term refers to posting in very old threads. This is usually viewed as negative unless you're providing a valuable contribution to said threads.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/necropost
The main theory amongst FETers is that UA only affects large objects, such as the earth or the cosmos, but this falls down as large objects do not fall slower, as one might expect under that theory.
Well I have read the Wiki, and it's faith and pixie dust.
Thanks, but I'm actually looking for a serious answer.
Every Muslim I've ever met doesn't care about non Muslims, and doesn't follow the qu'ran's approach to them, much like most Christians.Most Muslims believe what the Qur'an tells them about non-Muslims. After reading it three times, and studying in a Mosque for two years before becoming observant, I know this. You evidently do not. Read the Sunnah as well, where these beliefs are confirmed. And every Muslim I ever met confirmed that nearly all of them upheld Qur'anic standards. One almost has to.
I'm not convinced you've ever met a muslim
Ask me if I give a shit what you're convinced of.
Do you mean parallel like railroad tracks?It is not the parallel quality, rather the angle at which they hit the earth. If they are directly , then the rays will be focused, resulting in hotter, brighter rays. If they hit at a wide angle, then the rays will be less and less hot.
I wasn't aware there were multiple types of parallel. Could you explain what you mean?
You cannot deny this. It isn't fading away. It is clearly sinking.The video shows the sun clearly sinking below the horizon, not fading away.
I guess that is a matter of opinion, since it looks like it is fading away to me.
Yes, because the sun's rays are spread out.This isn't the debate section, so I'm not going to argue with you. Q&A section is where I give the FE answer for your question.My apologies, I was told to redirect my line of questioning to Q&A. Allow me to rephrase:
FETers, how do you explain this:
{video link}
? The video shows the sun clearly sinking below the horizon, not fading away.
Did you notice that your video also shows everything getting dark, even before the sun appears to "sink" below the horizon? It is almost as if the light is fading away, is it not?
This isn't the debate section, so I'm not going to argue with you. Q&A section is where I give the FE answer for your question.My apologies, I was told to redirect my line of questioning to Q&A. Allow me to rephrase:
Yeah.. it does actually sink clearly...Then why can you see the sun half set?
As the Sun becomes farther away, only portions of it will be shielded from site. Notice that the Sun fades away gradually at the terminator, it doesn't suddenly disappear like a true horizon on a spherical world would cause.
Then why can you see the sun half set?What kind of optical illusion do you mean?
Due to opacity and refraction the sky and land appear to meet when they never do.
The atmolayer is not transparent and is in fact quite opaque. As the Sun moves away, it becomes not only dimmer, but redshifts as well, eventually disappearing entirely. The horizon is an optical illusion caused by the opacity of the atmolayer.What kind of optical illusion do you mean?
He did find something: nothing. I.e.nothing. He found that there were no records.Now, that would be interesting, since I doubt they'd find any more than I did.
Except that you didn't actually find anything, nor did you attempt to.
Thank you very much for your replies. Just a couple of further questions:1)why it moves in a circleQuote from: http://wiki.tfes.org/StarsThe sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. The underlying cause for this rotation is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement. Think of a binary (two) star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system.
The stars in the night sky rotate around common barycenters above the earth just as the sun and moon do. From a location on the earth's surface the stars in the sky might seem to scroll across the night sky with Polaris at the hub.
Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.2)why it doesn't fall down onto the earthQuote from: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Accelerationthere is a force that produces identical effects as observed from the surface of the earth. This force is known as "Universal Acceleration" (abbreviated as UA).
Objects on the earth's surface have weight because all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects).3)why it shines like a spotlight if it is a ball.I can't answer that one, not being a spherical Sun believer myself.None of this is in the wiki, so please don't just direct me there. Thanks.I'm sorry that you're finding it difficult to find content on the Wiki. If you have any suggestions on how to make it easier to navigate, I'd be genuinely interested to hear those. If you have any feedback on that, please post it in S&C.