Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #80 on: February 23, 2016, 10:39:51 AM »
For me Cosmology has no impact at all on the basic Heliocentric Globe Earth!

No wonder you are a RE believer.

If you want anybody to believe you that the Earth is round, for starters you must address the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

Until then, anything you say amounts to nothing.


FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).

Speaking of paradoxes...

From the scientific view the sun is accepted to have a diameter of approximately 1.4 million km, a volume of 1,410,000,000,000,000,000 cubic km, an accepted current age of 4.57 billion years and an expected lifespan of another 5 billion years.

According to FET the sun has a diameter of 32 miles giving it a volume of 17,157 cubic miles.  How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #81 on: February 23, 2016, 11:41:06 AM »
I can debunk your "accepted" solar data in less than 30 seconds.

However, you mentioned the words "According to FET the sun has a diameter of 32 miles" which means your question is addressed to the UAFE who cannot explain the 1.5 km/year precession of the sun (in 4000 years this will amount to 6000 km, thus exceeding the space alloted for the orbit of the sun, situated between the two Tropics).

In order to answer your question in the context of the correct FET theory, a new subject has to be brought into our discussion: the new radical chronology of history.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #82 on: February 23, 2016, 12:36:12 PM »
My question is addressed within the confines of this forum and site because the 32 mile diameter of the sun is taken directly from the oh so religiously referenced wiki.

The new radical chronology of history?  Is this yet another way to dance around the questions asked of you or is it the title of a new song by the group?

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #83 on: February 23, 2016, 05:23:50 PM »
Speaking of paradoxes...

How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?

Speaking of paradoxes... How has the sun ever been able to generate life? Is that what you truly believe happened?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #84 on: February 23, 2016, 11:50:52 PM »
Speaking of paradoxes...

How has the sun of the FET even lasted long enough to get the earth to the point of being able to generate life let alone supporting life for the entire age of life?

Speaking of paradoxes... How has the sun ever been able to generate life? Is that what you truly believe happened?
What has the origin of life or the age of the sun got to do with "Gravitational Waves" or the "Shape of the Earth"?

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #85 on: February 24, 2016, 12:57:06 AM »
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #86 on: February 24, 2016, 02:51:20 AM »
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

No you're not but such is the nature of this forum.  The entire thing is built upon the structure of a sentence or paragraph and everyone, myself included, waits on baited breath for the person they are arguing with to make a slip in grammar so that they can then attempt to tear their argument apart.

Bad on me for structuring my statement incorrectly.  Good on you for catching it and latching on to it.

Care to address the actual paradox that I posed?

How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?


Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #87 on: February 24, 2016, 03:09:46 AM »
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school. 
watch?v=xhcVJcINzn8

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #88 on: February 24, 2016, 03:17:59 AM »
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.
You went to "globular" school! I never did, I suppose that is why I don't know all these things!
That is no answer! What is the mechanism in the sun that generates this energy? 

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #89 on: February 24, 2016, 04:27:29 AM »
Just trying to understand the person I'm talking to.

No you're not but such is the nature of this forum.  The entire thing is built upon the structure of a sentence or paragraph and everyone, myself included, waits on baited breath for the person they are arguing with to make a slip in grammar so that they can then attempt to tear their argument apart.

Bad on me for structuring my statement incorrectly.  Good on you for catching it and latching on to it.

Care to address the actual paradox that I posed?

How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?

Hey speak for your own breath lol...

Definitely wasn't trying to back you into a corner, or trick you, I was just trying to see if you had a unique perspective on how life came to be on this planet. I am even willing to admit, surrounded by atheists and armchair scientists, that I believe the universe is a product of intelligent design.

So no, my purpose here isn't to bicker and argue with people, I'll save that for YouTube comment section. I'm here to learn more about something that intrigues me, and I prefer a mutual respect for each others ideas. I apologize if I've come off any other way.

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #90 on: February 24, 2016, 12:32:21 PM »
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?

Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #91 on: February 24, 2016, 03:35:11 PM »
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?

How does the sun do that on a RE?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #92 on: February 24, 2016, 11:02:42 PM »
How has a sun of approximately 17,000 cubic miles lasted so long?  What is the FE dance for this to happen?
Easy:  matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 
I learned that in "globular" school.

Did you drop out of globular school prior to learning that matter and energy can be transformed?

The only way the FE sun could last as long as it has is if it is somehow transforming matter into energy (light and heat) and is somehow converting this energy back to matter in an equal measure.  Most of the energy would be lost to radiation.  How does it get the energy back to transform back into matter?

How does the sun do that on a RE?
(What do you mean by RE? I thought the Flat Earth WAS round!)

The Globe Earth's sun uses "Thermonuclear Fusion" as an energy source
but is 2x1013 times the volume of the FE sun (IF it is a sphere!),
and the Globe Earth sun's energy
is spread over an area only about 240x106 times the area of the Flat Earth!

The Globe Earth's sun has massively more relative volume of fuel for its thermonuclear "furnace"!

Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #93 on: February 25, 2016, 04:28:56 PM »
How does the sun do that on a RE?
(What do you mean by RE? I thought the Flat Earth WAS round!)

The Globe Earth's sun uses "Thermonuclear Fusion" as an energy source
but is 2x1013 times the volume of the FE sun (IF it is a sphere!),
and the Globe Earth sun's energy
is spread over an area only about 240x106 times the area of the Flat Earth!

The Globe Earth's sun has massively more relative volume of fuel for its thermonuclear "furnace"!

If you believe that we have accurately measured the "life span" of the Sun then you have to address the point sandokhan brought up earlier in this thread. We can only postulate, theorize, hypothesize how the sun works from here on Earth, supposedly 93 million miles away. By the way, if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light and somehow can hold radiation back, then how is that the Earth gets any sunlight or UV radiation from the sun?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves of Bullshit
« Reply #94 on: February 26, 2016, 02:23:28 AM »
If you believe that we have accurately measured the "life span" of the Sun then you have to address the point sandokhan brought up earlier in this thread. We can only postulate, theorize, hypothesize how the sun works from here on Earth, supposedly 93 million miles away. By the way, if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light and somehow can hold radiation back, then how is that the Earth gets any sunlight or UV radiation from the sun?
I don't "have to address the point sandokhan brought up" or anything else!
We can do quite a lot of postulating, theorizing and hypothesizing how the sun works from here on Earth with spectral analysis and analysis or sun particles emitted, but I'm not going to get into that discussion! What's not point?

Wherever did you get "if gravity is as powerful as it is on the sun, and it bends light" from? Another Youtube video?
Yes, gravitation fields can bend light, but
Quote
A ray of light nicking the edge of the sun, for example, would bend a minuscule 1.75 arcseconds — the angle made by a right triangle 1 inch high and 1.9 miles long.
from: http://www.wired.com/2009/05/dayintech_0529/
Yes, the amount of bending for even the sun's mass is miniscule!
Then "somehow can hold radiation back". This gets wierder and wierder!
You try to ridicule the Heliocentric Globe Earth, yet you will never face the massive problems any Flat Earth hypothesis has in explaining moon phases, sun rise times and directions, six month sun at the South Pole, 24 hour sun over almost all of Antarctica at the south summer equinox and on and on!

Really I am not interested in discussion your imagined problems with a globe until you have some viable alternative.
And, you simply do not!

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #95 on: February 26, 2016, 02:45:21 AM »
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #96 on: February 26, 2016, 06:32:03 AM »
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Right, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to  find a lot of common ground!

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #97 on: February 26, 2016, 05:47:38 PM »
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Right, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to  find a lot of common ground!

No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense. General Relativity? Get the **** out of here with that nonsense.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5682
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #98 on: February 26, 2016, 11:34:18 PM »
You can carefully look over all my posts and you wont find a single time where I explicitly said the earth is flat. All I ever said is I dont believe we have the technology or insight required to know the things man purports to know. I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe NASA landed on the moon. As I said we are coming from two very different points of view, so it's very unlikely we will find a lot of ccommon ground
Right, so all you are interested in is knocking things down, with nothing to replace it, so very unlikely to  find a lot of common ground!

No I want to replace them with things that are independently verifiable, universally experienced, and built on a foundation of common sense. General Relativity? Get the **** out of here with that nonsense.

By nonsense I can only assume you mean "theory which has survived many experimental tests and has made many accurate predictions."
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Gravitational Waves
« Reply #99 on: February 27, 2016, 12:14:54 AM »
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.



Realistic explanation of LIGO's billion dollar discovery.