What is the Sun?
« on: July 12, 2017, 07:57:22 PM »

I'm trying to explain the FE model to a friend and she raised a few questions I couldn't answer, which made me think of a few more.
In the Flat Earth model:
What is the Sun's composition?
What are its mass and dimensions?
How far is it from Earth?
Who made the measurements, from where, and what instrumentation and procedures did they use?
And most importantly, did anyone else check their work?

Thanks!
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 09:19:56 PM by chipsullivan »

Offline FEFTW

  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2017, 10:58:49 PM »
Also, how does it stay so hot? What is the mechanism?

Offline Efins

  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2017, 09:03:32 AM »
I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but the truth is that this theory doesn't enjoy of enough scientifical proof, theoretical coherency and common sense. There are too many lack and unanswered question that make of all this points a mere conspiracy without a kind of support by reason. It's good thing to follow a continuous cycle of researching, because it is typical of Man, but like someone here already said "not always what you see is true, and what you claim according to your sight might be misunderstood"

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2017, 04:36:11 PM »
I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but the truth is that this theory doesn't enjoy of enough scientifical proof, theoretical coherency and common sense. There are too many lack and unanswered question that make of all this points a mere conspiracy without a kind of support by reason. It's good thing to follow a continuous cycle of researching, because it is typical of Man, but like someone here already said "not always what you see is true, and what you claim according to your sight might be misunderstood"

You lost me at scentifical. So, no answers leads to really only one conclusion. Flat Earth is more of a faith than an empirically based system of belief.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2017, 04:43:08 PM »
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2017, 06:07:40 PM »
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.

The spectrum of light coming from the sun has indeed been measured (rather carefully and by an enormous number of solar astronomers).

The spectrum looks like this:



From this, it's easy to determine that almost all solar activity comes from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium...and from that, and the observed amount of "insolation" (light and heat from the sun, measured from high altitude balloons and (sorry) spacecraft) - we can tell how much radiation the sun is emitting...which corroborates the spectral images we obtain.

I could go on to explain how we use this (and other) astronomical observations to determine the precise size and distance to the sun - but I can tell you're already ignoring the evidence.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2017, 09:30:42 PM »
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2017, 03:44:06 PM »
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.

Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

There is zero cohesiveness in the flat earth theory, and your methods of "proving" your theory are never consistent.  You have to suffer from some severe delusions if you are not able to see the blatant hypocrisy and mountain of lies that is involved in this comical conspiracy theory.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2017, 12:26:04 AM »
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.

I did not suggest that anyone could know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it, Tom. I asked specific questions about the flat Earth model. Not one of those questions has been answered. You could take the bold step forward and speak for your movement by simply replying, "We don't know."

The mechanism underlying the motions of the sun, planets, asteroids, comets, etc. is well known. It is gravity as defined by Newton’s laws of motion.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2017, 03:44:03 AM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

Offline Pineal

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2017, 05:47:23 AM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2017, 06:20:03 AM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?

Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2017, 01:19:05 PM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?

Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
Firstly, what does the nature of Lake Michigan have to do with this? Secondly, if you're going to constantly reference that text, the least you could do is link the chapter when you ask someone to read a chapter from it. It's not a particularly difficult thing to do, and makes others more inclined to follow through upon your suggestion/request.
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 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2017, 01:41:24 PM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?

Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.

But Tom - why do you accept Rowbotham's result rather than Ulysses Grant Morrow's very similar experiment which "proved" that the Earth is concave and Henry Yule Oldham's result which "proved" that the Earth is convex?

There are NUMEROUS results from these kinds of test that show all three outcomes.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment - which describes the whole horrible fiasco.)

Why dismiss Morrow and Oldham out of hand and accept Rowbotham?

The intellectually honest conclusion is that because these "visibility over water" experiments clearly produce mixed results, that we have to conclude that this is an (at best) unreliable way to decide the issue.   We all see things like mirages and Fata Morgana over water - we KNOW that light bends  in close proximity to a water surface - so why...WHY...are you happily ignoring those effects and taking Rowbotham's result as the gospel truth when other, equally accomplished, experimenters came to two completely opposite conclusions?

The rational way to deal with these varying results is to try to explain what was different between them (air temperature, pressure and humidity seem like reasonable candidates) - and look for an explanation for their wildly differing conclusions rather than to pick one of the three conflicting results and determine that the whole of physics, geography, etc is incorrect.

To simply pick one of the three as "correct" and ignore the others is simply not a reasonable approach.

Now - if you wish to deny the "refraction" explanation - that's fine...it's a tough thing to prove.

But if you do that, then the Bedford Level experiment and it's successors proved (at best) an inconclusive result - we should not base our entire discussion upon them.

Instead - take the evidence of things like the phases of the moon - the rising and setting of the sun/moon/stars - the orientation of the moon as seen from different locations - the variation in the force of gravity over the surface of the earth.   All of those observations are a perfect fit for a round earth - and do not require multiple layers of increasingly bizarre theories.

So - remind us again what is responsible for the phases of the moon and the experimental evidence you have for that?


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2017, 06:10:30 PM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?

Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
Firstly, what does the nature of Lake Michigan have to do with this? Secondly, if you're going to constantly reference that text, the least you could do is link the chapter when you ask someone to read a chapter from it. It's not a particularly difficult thing to do, and makes others more inclined to follow through upon your suggestion/request.

You will need to read the chapter to understand how the first point about Lake Michigan is relative.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2017, 06:26:27 PM »
But Tom - why do you accept Rowbotham's result rather than Ulysses Grant Morrow's very similar experiment which "proved" that the Earth is concave and Henry Yule Oldham's result which "proved" that the Earth is convex?

There are NUMEROUS results from these kinds of test that show all three outcomes.

(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment - which describes the whole horrible fiasco.)

Why dismiss Morrow and Oldham out of hand and accept Rowbotham?

Oldham was his only witness as he took his pictures where Rowbotham and Blount had plenty.

Per Morrow, he speaks highly of Rowbotham in his book, supported the results of Rowbotham's experiments 100%, and conducts similar experiments of looking at things across long bodies of water, making the same conclusions that water is not convex. He does bring up some other points which might suggest that the earth is concave, but he had no problem with the results of the water convexity experiments Rowbotham describes. I encourage you to read Morrow's work.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 06:28:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2017, 06:43:24 PM »
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?

Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.

I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?

Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
Firstly, what does the nature of Lake Michigan have to do with this? Secondly, if you're going to constantly reference that text, the least you could do is link the chapter when you ask someone to read a chapter from it. It's not a particularly difficult thing to do, and makes others more inclined to follow through upon your suggestion/request.

You will need to read the chapter to understand how the first point about Lake Michigan is relative.
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.
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 Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 2705
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2017, 07:35:37 PM »
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.

Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2017, 07:51:03 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Re: What is the Sun?
« Reply #19 on: July 17, 2017, 08:01:11 PM »
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.

Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.
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