# Magnetic waves on MOTT edges:

sonhouse
General 09 Feb '17 13:56
1. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
24 Feb '17 16:375 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The position of the sun in relation to the earth is a bit problematic no matter what model is used.
It could be said to be twice the size and twice the distance, half the size, half the distance and so forth.
However, its path through the sky is not open for debate.
Take eclipses for example.
Watch the path of totality on earth and it becomes apparent ...[text shortened]... ated to the shape of the earth cannot conclusively rule out a flat earth, given all particulars.
That is BS, the position of the sun has been well known by a dozen different measurment techniques, for hundreds of years. It is the centerpiece of the solar system. For instance, there would be no way in hell the sun would make Venus 900 degrees if it was a small globe just heating Earth. Did you understand my argument about the size of the sun and if it was say 2000 miles up in some kind of orbit like a yo yo spinning around Earth, which is say 25,000 miles in circumference which would be the size from one edge to the other if it was spread out like a pancake.

Try to think about that one issue, the inverse square law. It has been proven for everything that emits an omnidirectional pattern of radiation, whether it is light, gamma rays, X rays, whatever they all will follow the inverse square law.

This is due to simple geometry. If you visualize a globe emitting energy and then have some distances plotted out and make a sphere at those distances, you will find the energy follows the inverse square law just because the bigger spheres will dilute the original energy level.

You measure an emitter at X distance and get Y radiation energy. You go to 2X and you now get 1/4th at Y, 3X, 1/9th, 4X, 1/16th the energy and so forth. Can you try to picture the scene as given by your flatass buddies and combine that idea with inverse square law. California would freeze ever time it was noon in NYC and the same but worse for South America which could be ten times the distance and therefore 1/100th of the energy. Work on that one and don't bring anything else up. And have them try to explain why Venus is 900 degrees and Mars close to Earth temperatures at times. Try to do that with some kind of hot globe heating up just Earth. That is BESIDES the local inverse square law making very cold places on Earth at the same time it is hot directly underneath the alleged position of the sun.

The only way you get the relatively even heating of Earth now is if the sun is very far from Earth, say 93 million miles. At that distance, inverse square law says there will not be much difference in temperature from say, the equator, vs going half way down to 45 degrees either up or down from the equator. If you are on a satellite and measure the sun's energy output, it will be nearly the same from being in orbit near the north pole or equator, something that cannot EVER happen with a sun just a few thousand miles up in space and I for one cannot understand why that argument would ever even come up, except as a strawman argument to boost the flatass myth.

On our globe Earth if we are in a satellite say polar orbit and we are therefore going from north pole to south pole say going south then going north from the south pole to the north pole. So you measure the sun when we are over the north pole, we get say 1300 watts per square meter from the sun.

When we are over the equator, we are about 4000 miles closer to the sun than when we are at the poles.

Now for inverse square law, that would be say 93,000,000 miles say, at the equator and 93,004,000 miles at the poles. That would be an increase of 1.00008 times being at the equator, which for 1300 watts at the pole would be 1300.1 watts at the equator. A cloud can block a hundred times that so it is so far down in the mud mathematically and energenically as to make practically zero difference in temperatures on Earth, leaving only the curvature of Earth giving the results we see of the lower energy recieved when we are either at sunset or sunrise Vs when the sun is overhead. That is not what would happen on a flat Earth with a sun a few thousand miles over head somehow spinning around Earth like a yo yo on a string.

BTW, I didn't have to google anything for this argument, these are my words and math, not some copy and paste BS.
2. 24 Feb '17 18:09
Originally posted by sonhouse
That is BS, the position of the sun has been well known by a dozen different measurment techniques, for hundreds of years. It is the centerpiece of the solar system. For instance, there would be no way in hell the sun would make Venus 900 degrees if it was a small globe just heating Earth. Did you understand my argument about the size of the sun and if it ...[text shortened]... e to google anything for this argument, these are my words and math, not some copy and paste BS.
That makes assumptions which are not established.
3. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
24 Feb '17 19:15
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That makes assumptions which are not established.
Assumptions? We KNOW venus is 900 degrees, a Russian probe landed there designed to withstand high temperatures and it didn't last an hour. There are no assumptions about that. Venus is 900 degrees, brought about by a monster greenhouse gas effect.

There is no doubt about that because it did not depend on just astronomers data, this came directly from a Russian probe that landed and fried 20 minutes in.

Same with Mars. We don't have to depend on astronomers to know the temperature on Mars there are all kinds of probes there too both in orbit and on the ground and not all of them NASA. ESA has orbiters also.

So those are not assumptions, those are direct in your face measurments.

Venus CANNOT be 900 degrees if the sun is a few thousand miles above Earth and what, a hundred miles in diameter like the flatassers say? Did you not understand my post about inverse square law?
4. 24 Feb '17 20:24
Originally posted by sonhouse
Assumptions? We KNOW venus is 900 degrees, a Russian probe landed there designed to withstand high temperatures and it didn't last an hour. There are no assumptions about that. Venus is 900 degrees, brought about by a monster greenhouse gas effect.

There is no doubt about that because it did not depend on just astronomers data, this came directly from a ...[text shortened]... es in diameter like the flatassers say? Did you not understand my post about inverse square law?
You're assuming declarations of space agencies can be relied upon while I have established they cannot.

You're also assuming distance to the sun, its relative energy, speed of light and at least three or four other principles which are only theoretical.

Since you enjoy math, assume this wholly verifiable and testable conjecture:
Two men of exact height with an eye level of 6' are standing on platforms on the open sea, both at 0' sea level.
Assuming clear conditions otherwise, at what point in mileage distance between them will either see only the top of the other man's head level with the waveless water?
One mile?
Ten miles?
5. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
24 Feb '17 20:342 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're assuming declarations of space agencies can be relied upon while I have established they cannot.

You're also assuming distance to the sun, its relative energy, speed of light and at least three or four other principles which are only theoretical.

Since you enjoy math, assume this wholly verifiable and testable conjecture:
Two men of exact he ...[text shortened]... r see only the top of the other man's head level with the waveless water?
One mile?
Ten miles?
That's your big answer? Now you dis the Russian space agency? Roscosmos? So what, are they also in on the big conspiracy? And ESA? Roscosos, Esa and NASA have probes around Mars, NASA is the only agency to land on Mars, Russia has failed a bunch of times but they did not fail at Venus.

So if you are going to dis Roscosmos, ESA AND NASA we have nothing further to discuss and on a flat surface like you said the number is about 7 miles something like that and that is proven, you can go to the salt flats, you don't need to be on a beach or a boat. If you do it when it is cool and there are minimal atmospheric effects it will work out that way every time and it works the exact same way on the moon but the horizon is closer so maybe 3 miles and no head on the moon. BTW, that is the place to do these kind of experiments because the atmosphere is out of the equation and it would be obvious you see X at Y altitude, whether that is 6 feet above the surface or 6 miles or 600 miles, it works the same, no atmosphere to screw up those measurements.

So now NOBODY does space, ALL space flights are fake, is that your line?

You said you were taking time to research the Earth magnetic field and weeks went by on that one, I guess you thought I would somehow forget about that. Then I mentioned the inverse square law which totally stops your close in sun, it blows that out the water, inverse square law clearly stops that from happening. And you didn't mention either about the Analemma that clearly shows the sun goes through this figure 8 pattern throughout the year and reproduces that exactly every year.

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/projects/sundials/analemma_summation.html

The flatasser explanation is hogwash if you even know what it is. They keep harping on the axial tilt which is one effect of analemma but there is another.
6. 24 Feb '17 21:07
Originally posted by sonhouse
That's your big answer? Now you dis the Russian space agency? Roscosmos? So what, are they also in on the big conspiracy? And ESA? Roscosos, Esa and NASA have probes around Mars, NASA is the only agency to land on Mars, Russia has failed a bunch of times but they did not fail at Venus.

So if you are going to dis Roscosmos, ESA AND NASA we have nothing f ...[text shortened]... it is. They keep harping on the axial tilt which is one effect of analemma but there is another.
I didn't suggest leaving space agencies out of it; that was your doing.
And then you bought them back into it with a reference to some alleged probe--- a sheer impossibility if the earth is, indeed, chasing the sun as it screams through the universe.
All of the math you are referencing is entirely theoretical and impossible to prove.
The math I am referencing is 100% science: measurable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable.
As you (closely) stated, six miles puts each person's head level with the surface for the other person.

Since this math is irrefutable, how is it that it is not ever seen in reality?
How is it that either man will be able to see the other man's complete and undiminished frame?
7. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
24 Feb '17 21:38
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I didn't suggest leaving space agencies out of it; that was your doing.
And then you bought them back into it with a reference to some alleged probe--- a sheer impossibility if the earth is, indeed, chasing the sun as it screams through the universe.
All of the math you are referencing is entirely theoretical and impossible to prove.
The math I am refer ...[text shortened]...
How is it that either man will be able to see the other man's complete and undiminished frame?
In other words you don't want to hear arguments about analemma's, Earth's magnetic field or the inverse square law, you seem to think all of that is some unprovable. In that case we have nothing further to discuss. You seem to think every scientists who walked the face of the Earth including Isaac Newton who did an analysis of what the sun would look like at sunrise and sunset if Earth was flat and he showed conclusively the atmosphere would be a screwed up lens that would flatten the image of any round object close to the horizon so the sun would always look like a sausage not a sphere, but none of that means a thing to you since you put yourself WAY above any of those scientists none of whom can apparently measure up to your greatness. So be it. Then we have nothing further to discuss. You think there is no such thing as the magnetic field around Earth for instance? That is a lie just like NASA? Show me your work then.
8. 25 Feb '17 00:18
Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words you don't want to hear arguments about analemma's, Earth's magnetic field or the inverse square law, you seem to think all of that is some unprovable. In that case we have nothing further to discuss. You seem to think every scientists who walked the face of the Earth including Isaac Newton who did an analysis of what the sun would look like a ...[text shortened]... magnetic field around Earth for instance? That is a lie just like NASA? Show me your work then.
I'm simply not interested in theoreticals: they can only "prove" something within the framework of that world, nothing in this world.
Even when a theoretical shows possible crossover application in this world, there is no reference point which can act as control.

You've been given a concrete problem which does not rely on theoreticals, but instead is based on real numbers attached to physical realities which cannot be manipulated by anyone.

Two men six miles apart in a flat surface are able to see one another without any loss whatsoever.
Without NASA or any other space agency's integrity considered, what is seen on the face of this planet completely contradicts the math required of a sphere.
9. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
25 Feb '17 14:372 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm simply not interested in theoreticals: they can only "prove" something within the framework of that world, nothing in this world.
Even when a theoretical shows possible crossover application in this world, there is no reference point which can act as control.

You've been given a concrete problem which does not rely on theoreticals, bu ...[text shortened]... d, what is seen on the face of this planet completely contradicts the math required of a sphere.
Ok, enough of your BS, you don't want to even consider what I said. Analemma is not theoretical, you just put out that word as a strawman. For a while I thought you were actually thinking about the points I brought up about the magnetic field of Earth, which is ALSO not theoretical but in fact you had and have no intention of even addressing any of the issues I brough up, and now Roscomon lies as well as ESA, NASA and all the rest, ONLY because what they say blows your REALLY stupid flatassness out the water. Goodbye and go back to your boyfriend. I will not be replying to any of your posts on this matter unless you want to address real issues and not your strawman arguments.
10. 25 Feb '17 15:12
Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, enough of your BS, you don't want to even consider what I said. Analemma is not theoretical, you just put out that word as a strawman. For a while I thought you were actually thinking about the points I brought up about the magnetic field of Earth, which is ALSO not theoretical but in fact you had and have no intention of even addressing any of the issu ...[text shortened]... our posts on this matter unless you want to address real issues and not your strawman arguments.
You were given AN issue, one solitary, single issue which is grounded on physical reality and instead, opted to throw up a wall of text.
I did consider your points--- each of them--- and correctly concluded that all of them were based on theoreticals, not a one of which could be independently verified without reliance on more theoreticals.
We dropped the football issue because you simply refused to acknowledge the implication of NASA's deceit.
You were asked how it is possible to see distant objects on a sphere and instead of responding to that excruciatingly simple thought experiment, decided to bring in sundry other topics.
The frustration you're experiencing is a direct result of your refusal to look at the topic objectively, and (I assume) you think if you display enough disdain and contempt, you will somehow avoid addressing the very obvious truth.
If the world is a sphere, it does not behave like one--- at least, mathematically along geometric expectations.

Let's leave the insults out, if you are able.
11. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
25 Feb '17 16:54
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You were given AN issue, one solitary, single issue which is grounded on physical reality and instead, opted to throw up a wall of text.
I did consider your points--- each of them--- and correctly concluded that all of them were based on theoreticals, not a one of which could be independently verified without reliance on more theoreticals.
We dropped th ...[text shortened]... , mathematically along geometric expectations.

Let's leave the insults out, if you are able.
You didn't 'correctly' base anything on theoreticals. You just rejected the argument out of hand. Let's see your research then. You seriously think a sun a couple thousand miles up will make analemma? or the magnetic field of Earth which has been verified to converge in Antarctica, that is THEORY? You have a twisted view of theoretical. The only thing theoretical I mentioned was Newton's study of a long flat atmosphere bending visually things that are round to things that become sausage shaped near the horizon. But you didn't bother to look at the issue yourself did you? You do realize for instance that light bends when there is a transparent medium that varies in density, right? So if there really was this flat ten thousand mile wide planet looking through that atmosphere would have obvious distorted lens effects because you would be looking at higher density of air close to the ground and lower density of air higher up. This again, is not theory, it is how we can come to see stuff beyond the horizon. But with a truly flat Eath that effect would be multioplied a thousand times over. Again, that is not theory, that is solid science. We know a lot about optics, a hell of a lot in fact and changing density is one of the ways light paths can be modified. But of course to you, it's all theory since you have not even been close to an actual optics lab. I have. I saw the work done on optical confinement and such and in fact one of my jobs there was to build an optical vibration isolation table, a massive device with 8 separate pneumatic lifters holding the thing in position on air pressure only the pistons doing that job floating with the weight of the massive optical table supported by those pistons literally floating on a controlled air lift. I guess that is theory too, eh.
12. 25 Feb '17 22:48
Originally posted by sonhouse
You didn't 'correctly' base anything on theoreticals. You just rejected the argument out of hand. Let's see your research then. You seriously think a sun a couple thousand miles up will make analemma? or the magnetic field of Earth which has been verified to converge in Antarctica, that is THEORY? You have a twisted view of theoretical. The only thing theor ...[text shortened]... ed by those pistons literally floating on a controlled air lift. I guess that is theory too, eh.
Zero in on one topic.
How can those two men see each other even seven mIles apart?
13. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
26 Feb '17 00:43
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Zero in on one topic.
How can those two men see each other even seven mIles apart?
No, you cannot even think about the subjects I brought up because to do so would blow your whole fantasy out the window. So that is it, I am done, no more, have a good life, stick your head in the sand. Goodbye, my last word on this. And there will be no further reply.
14. 26 Feb '17 13:38
Originally posted by sonhouse
No, you cannot even think about the subjects I brought up because to do so would blow your whole fantasy out the window. So that is it, I am done, no more, have a good life, stick your head in the sand. Goodbye, my last word on this. And there will be no further reply.
I've provided a scenario which does not require any elevated math, minor theoretical factoring.
Your scenario requires much more math, and is nearly entirely based on theoretical, i.e., items which can only be considered in one's mind or perhaps in a lab.
We cannot measure the magnetic force of the earth, for instance, without some form of a sophisticated tool.
We can, however, use a ruler or other simple measuring device to determine the distance between two points.
We can use our eyes to observe whether or not an object is visible.
We can use a pencil and paper to work out the math of the expected drop according to the also-testable simple rules of geometry.

No matter what results the theoretical experiments might relay, what we cannot explain why distant objects are visible on what is supposed to be a sphere.
It serves zero purpose to consider any theoretical support for a sphere if the simple test for it provides enough information to exclude the possibility of being a sphere.
15. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
26 Feb '17 17:24
Originally posted by FreakyKBH