Distant black hole holds surprises about the early universe

[da_man1974]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

Flat: 

1.  "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."

Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full

This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.

You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...

"A Geometrical Flat Plane" 

And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*

Therefore, how can you Blindly Adhere to a Sphere that has one of it's Foundational Tenets "Vertical Drop" and yet at the SAME TIME have a FLAT PLANE with less than *1 METER VERTICAL DROP* over 9000 km2, pray tell??

** The Entire Globe Charade is actually OVER right here. 

 

 

2.  Sea Sparrow (NATO): 

"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf

 

Range is MORE THAN 35 Miles ( http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/ ).

The target is "Illuminated" with a 2° Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.

 

Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2° RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).

So Either ...

A. The NATO Sea Sparrow Exists, OR...

B. The Spinning-Ball Religion Exists.

BOTH can't be TRUE !!! Savvy?

 

3.  Flight:  Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a Sphere 25,000 miles in circumference... radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude.

166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude.

A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity(!!) in comparison.  The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff. 

 

 

4. Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...?  

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? 

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

 

5.  Vacuum of Space:

1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... 

                      WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! 

2. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ??

a.  In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale 'Narrative'... BOTH, at the same time??

b.  Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?

c.  Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....?

3. Have you ever heard: "Nature Abhors a Vacuum", by chance?  Why is that...?

 

If you can't provide Coherent/Substantive Falsifications of the 5 PROOFS above then your Globe Earth Position is UNTENABLE.  And the "astroNOTS" are lying.  

It's just that simple. 

Capisce?

 

 

So this is elephant hurling.  Got it.

 

The fallacy of elephant hurling, arises when the debater start to amassing huge quotes, accumulating a large amount of evidence supposedly supporting his position, to give the impression of weighty evidence, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support his argument. The debater has the undeclared assumption that accumulating a great deal of evidence out of context would make his ideas seem true.

[Enoch2021]

53 minutes ago, da_man1974 said:

So this is elephant hurling.  Got it.

 Ahh NO.  Your 'link' was an Elephant Hurling Fallacy.

 

Quote

The fallacy of elephant hurling, arises when the debater start to amassing huge quotes, accumulating a large amount of evidence supposedly supporting his position, to give the impression of weighty evidence, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support his argument. The debater has the undeclared assumption that accumulating a great deal of evidence out of context would make his ideas seem true.

Yes.  Here it is Officially...

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy):  a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that the evidence does indeed support the argument. 
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

Exactly what you did.

 

regards

[ezekiel]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

4. Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

 You are living in a Magnetic field. As long as the strength of that field that is applied then Inertial is decreased with that motion. The stronger the magnetic field the less Inertial. To a point of that you will no longer fill or have any gravity. So if you stop at a 1000 miles per hour to 0 you fill no motion. 

[da_man1974]

Kind of like what you continually do.

[MorningGlory]

50 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

 Ahh NO.  Your 'link' was an Elephant Hurling Fallacy.

 

Yes.  Here it is Officially...

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy):  a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that the evidence does indeed support the argument. 
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

Exactly what you did.

 

regards

Pot meet Kettle. 

[MorningGlory]

6 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

He doesn't.

Meantime, there is a huge glaring hole in the assertion that the earth is flat: the color of the sun.

The "flat earth" model states that the sun is "32 miles wide and 3000 miles above the surface of the earth". This would put the sun well under the size of Jupiter, which is 86,881.4  miles wide. Jupiter is classified as a "failed star", as it did not achieve ignition even though it contained the same elements as the sun. This is due to the fact that Jupiter simply does not have the mass to achieve the nuclear fusion that the sun did, thus lacking the internal temperature and pressure needed to do so. Nuclear fusion must have a minimum pressure and temperature in order to begin the fusion of atoms (i.e. hydrogen into helium and so forth), without which, you do not have a star.

But according to the "flat earth model", the sun is a star  and shines, even though it could not possess anywhere near the mass that Jupiter did. Further, at just 32 miles wide, it also could not contain the needed fuel reserves to burn as long as it has. The sun is a "G-type main-sequence star (Spectral type: G-V)". This type of star, called a "Main Sequence Star", usually has about 0.84 to 1.15 solar masses and surface temperature of between 5,300 and 6,000 K as the parameters for the series. This is proven by its' color, as cooler stars tend towards the red end of the spectrum. In order to last that long as a yellow star, it would need to posses a great deal more gas density than a 32 mile-wide celestial body would allow. At the size the sun would be in the "flat earth model", it would glow a dull red color (if at all).

On that note: while white dwarf stars do burn more slowly, they are not true fusion-reaction bodies: they are expending their stored thermal energy and are composed of matter crushed to extreme pressures ("degenerate matter"). They are remnants of stars (the core) that have lived most of their lives, and also tend to produce deadly amounts of UV radiation that would destroy any life nearby. As they cool, they lose luminosity and dim, which the sun has not done. And while the sun is sometimes referred to (imprecisely) as a "yellow dwarf" star, its still conducts nuclear fusion, which white and brown dwarf stars do not.

In addition, in order for the sun to glow at the yellow color it does, the radiation given off would be far greater than a 3000-mile distance would safely allow for. This is determined by the composition of the energy given off by a solar body conducting nuclear fusion at a specified parameter in order to glow at a specified color. We know this due to the known characteristics of chemicals during nuclear fusion, elements and their behavior when exposed to radiation (specifically, ozone when struck by UV and solar emissions), the observable behavior of the earth's EM field when struck by the solar winds (Aurorae Borealis and Austrialis) and calculated solar output as measured from a known stellar body (the Sun).

Another concern with a "flat earth" model: The gravity of a stellar body that is yellow. Since the sun requires a specified mass/volume in order to provide the pressure and heat needed for fusion, let alone fusion that would produce the yellow color, that mass/volume would produce a specified amount of gravitational pull as well. An earth that did not move would fall into the sun, as the gravity from the mass/ volume needed for the sun to glow the color it does would pull the earth into it, destroying it.

Finally, a "flat earth" would have to orbit the sun in order to not fall into it. Were the earth "flat", it would be daytime and nighttime continuously across the globe, eliminating the need for "time zones" (Anyone doubting this can ask George on Worthy what "time of day it is" when he's at home). To avoid this, the earth would have to be "tidally locked" to the sun, which would bake the surface at unimaginable temperatures. 

In summary:

1) The temperature of the sun indicates a minimum mass and volume needed for it to be a "yellow" star.

2) A solar mass at only "32 miles" would have exhausted its' fuel long ago, if it could even burn at the temperatures needed to glow yellow.

3) A 32-mile body could not achieve ignition due to lack of pressure/ temperature, as evidenced by Jupiter's failure to achieve ignition.

4) It cannot be a white dwarf star, since there is no evidence of nuclear fusion in a white dwarf and said stars produce enormous amounts of UV radiation.

5) Were the sun only 3000 miles above the earth, it would destroy this planet based on the prodigious amounts of radiation being poured out at that distance, overloading the earth's magnetic field and ozone layer.

6) The mass and volume needed to sustain the sun at the temperature and pressure needed for it to be  a yellow" star would possess gravity that would pull the earth into itself.

7) To avoid being pulled into the sun, the earth would have to orbit the sun, which would either make daytime and nighttime constant across the globe (easily disproved), or sterilize the surface with heat and radiation.

 

With this in mind, the "flat earth" theory falls apart. And while I expect Enoch2021 to attempt to rip this apart, he simply cannot.  No matter how much "evidence" he tries to post, he cannot argue with established facts in astronomy, physics, chemistry and science as a whole. It would simply be much better to realize that the "corners of the earth" in Scripture is speaking metaphorically rather than literally, and stop attempting to beat a dead horse and make believers look like imbeciles.

-Sojo414.

 

 

 

I have never read this before, Sojourner, but it makes absolute sense.  Anyone who could believe the sun was that small and that close is simply not playing with a full deck.  Touting 'science' 24/7 without actually knowing what that means is baffling.

[da_man1974]

14 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

He doesn't.

Meantime, there is a huge glaring hole in the assertion that the earth is flat: the color of the sun.

The "flat earth" model states that the sun is "32 miles wide and 3000 miles above the surface of the earth". This would put the sun well under the size of Jupiter, which is 86,881.4  miles wide. Jupiter is classified as a "failed star", as it did not achieve ignition even though it contained the same elements as the sun. This is due to the fact that Jupiter simply does not have the mass to achieve the nuclear fusion that the sun did, thus lacking the internal temperature and pressure needed to do so. Nuclear fusion must have a minimum pressure and temperature in order to begin the fusion of atoms (i.e. hydrogen into helium and so forth), without which, you do not have a star.

But according to the "flat earth model", the sun is a star  and shines, even though it could not possess anywhere near the mass that Jupiter did under that "model". Further, at just 32 miles wide, it also could not contain the needed fuel reserves to burn as long as it has. The sun is a "G-type main-sequence star (Spectral type: G-V)". This type of star, called a "Main Sequence Star", usually has about 0.84 to 1.15 solar masses and surface temperature of between 5,300 and 6,000 K as the parameters for the series. This is proven by its' color, as cooler stars tend towards the red end of the spectrum. In order to last that long as a yellow star, it would need to posses a great deal more gas density than a 32 mile-wide celestial body would allow. At the size the sun would be in the "flat earth model", it would glow a dull red color (if at all).

On that note: while white dwarf stars do burn more slowly, they are not true fusion-reaction bodies: they are expending their stored thermal energy and are composed of matter crushed to extreme pressures ("degenerate matter"). They are remnants of stars (the core) that have lived most of their lives, and also tend to produce deadly amounts of UV radiation that would destroy any life nearby. As they cool, they lose luminosity and dim, which the sun has not done. And while the sun is sometimes referred to (imprecisely) as a "yellow dwarf" star, its still conducts nuclear fusion, which white and brown dwarf stars do not.

In addition, in order for the sun to glow at the yellow color it does, the radiation given off would be far greater than a 3000-mile distance would safely allow for. This is determined by the composition of the energy given off by a solar body conducting nuclear fusion at a specified parameter in order to glow at a specified color. We know this due to the known characteristics of chemicals during nuclear fusion, elements and their behavior when exposed to radiation (specifically, ozone when struck by UV and solar emissions), the observable behavior of the earth's EM field when struck by the solar winds (Aurorae Borealis and Austrialis) and calculated solar output as measured from a known stellar body (the Sun).

Another concern with a "flat earth" model: The gravity of a stellar body that is yellow. Since the sun requires a specified mass/volume in order to provide the pressure and heat needed for fusion, let alone fusion that would produce the yellow color, that mass/volume would produce a specified amount of gravitational pull as well. An earth that did not move would fall into the sun, as the gravity from the mass/ volume needed for the sun to glow the color it does would pull the earth into it, destroying it.

Finally, a "flat earth" would have to orbit the sun in order to not fall into it. Were the earth "flat", it would be daytime and nighttime continuously across the globe, eliminating the need for "time zones" (Anyone doubting this can ask George on Worthy what "time of day it is" when he's at home). To avoid this, the earth would have to be "tidally locked" to the sun, which would bake the surface at unimaginable temperatures. 

In summary:

1) The temperature of the sun indicates a minimum mass and volume needed for it to be a "yellow" star.

2) A solar mass at only "32 miles" would have exhausted its' fuel long ago, if it could even burn at the temperatures needed to glow yellow.

3) A 32-mile body could not achieve ignition due to lack of pressure/ temperature, as evidenced by Jupiter's failure to achieve ignition.

4) It cannot be a white dwarf star, since there is no evidence of nuclear fusion in a white dwarf and said stars produce enormous amounts of UV radiation.

5) Were the sun only 3000 miles above the earth, it would destroy this planet based on the prodigious amounts of radiation being poured out at that distance, overloading the earth's magnetic field and ozone layer.

6) The mass and volume needed to sustain the sun at the temperature and pressure needed for it to be  a yellow" star would possess gravity that would pull the earth into itself.

7) To avoid being pulled into the sun, the earth would have to orbit the sun, which would either make daytime and nighttime constant across the globe (easily disproved), or sterilize the surface with heat and radiation.

 

With this in mind, the "flat earth" theory falls apart. And while I expect Enoch2021 to attempt to rip this apart, he simply cannot.  No matter how much "evidence" he tries to post, he cannot argue with established facts in astronomy, physics, chemistry and science as a whole. It would simply be much better to realize that the "corners of the earth" in Scripture is speaking metaphorically rather than literally, and stop attempting to beat a dead horse and make believers look like imbeciles.

-Sojo414.

 

 

 

Wow.  Thank you for this.  

[Enoch2021]

18 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

He doesn't.

"Who" doesn't "What"...?

 

Quote

Meantime, there is a huge glaring hole in the assertion that the earth is flat: the color of the sun.

 Really?  "WHO" made that Assertion specifically?

 

Quote

The "flat earth" model states

1.  Straw Man Fallacy: There is No Flat Earth "Model".

2.  Even if there was, it's only a "Concept"; Inanimate Concepts don't "State" anything because they're Inanimate.  Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

Quote

that the sun is "32 miles wide and 3000 miles above the surface of the earth". This would put the sun well under the size of Jupiter, which is 86,881.4  miles wide.

Begging The Question (Fallacy): Scientifically Validate the Size of the Sun and Jupiter...?

 

Quote

Jupiter is classified as a "failed star", as it did not achieve ignition even though it contained the same elements as the sun. This is due to the fact that Jupiter simply does not have the mass to achieve the nuclear fusion that the sun did, thus lacking the internal temperature and pressure needed to do so. Nuclear fusion must have a minimum pressure and temperature in order to begin the fusion of atoms (i.e. hydrogen into helium and so forth), without which, you do not have a star.

That's a Nice Story ("Just So" type).

So you're saying the Sun is a Nuclear Fusion Reactor, eh?  Well then...

'Allegedly', the sun has an Inner Core Temperature of 15 Million Kelvin. The outer surface of the Sun (PhotoSphere) is ~ 5800 Kelvin. On its way to and through the Chromosphere, the temp slowly rises THEN... GOES PARABOLIC from 10,000K to 500,000K when nearing the Corona; THEN:
 
1 Million K - 10 Million K !!

I suppose the fairytale Pseudo-Science Priests collectively missed the Lectures on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; Heat really does flow UP 'parabolic' HILLS! lol

This is tantamount to standing near a Wood Stove then moving back 500 meters because it's too hot...then you 

                                              Spontaneously Combust !!!!! 

Please Reconcile...?

 

Biblically speaking, are Stars Suns??

 

Quote

But according to the "flat earth model", the sun is a star  and shines, even though it could not possess anywhere near the mass that Jupiter did under that "model".

1.  Again, there is no Flat Earth "Model"; Ergo...Straw Man Fallacy (x2).

2.  Non Sequitur Fallacy.  Your Premise ("Just So" Story) that the Sun is a essentially a Nuclear Fusion Reactor has been FALSIFIED (SEE: above); Ergo... your conclusion is Nonsensical and Invalid. 

3.  Begging The Question (Fallacy).  You're putting the cart before the horse (without a Cart or a Horse).  Scientifically Validate Jupiter's Mass...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

??????

 

Quote

Further, at just 32 miles wide, it also could not contain the needed fuel reserves to burn as long as it has. The sun is a "G-type main-sequence star (Spectral type: G-V)". This type of star, called a "Main Sequence Star", usually has about 0.84 to 1.15 solar masses and surface temperature of between 5,300 and 6,000 K as the parameters for the series.

More "Just So" Stories:

Scientifically Validate EACH: Stars are Suns, "Main Sequence Stars", Solar Masses, 0.84 to 1.15 solar masses, Surface Temps...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

This is proven by its' color 

Begging The Question (Fallacy): Scientifically Validate (SEE: Steps Above).

It's becoming quite apparent that you're having a difficult time discerning the difference between "Science" and "Just-So" Stories.  It's all in 'The Method':

"Science"-- Method: The Scientific Method.

Fairytale "Just-So" Stories--Method: Imagination.

Follow?  Now go back and Scientifically Validate ALL of your "Just-So" Stories and start OVER.  K?

 

Quote

Another concern with a "flat earth" model: The gravity...

1.  Another Straw Man Fallacy: "Model".

2.  'gravity' ?? Which 'gravity'... Einstienian or Newtonian ??

a.  Is gravity a Force?
b.  Is 'gravity' a Scientific Law or Scientific Theory?
c.  What is the CAUSE of 'gravity'...?
d.  Scientifically Validate 'gravity'...?

 

Quote

And while I expect Enoch2021 to attempt to rip this apart, he simply cannot.

I 'simply', just did 

 

Quote

No matter how much "evidence" he tries to post, he cannot argue with established facts in 1. astronomy, 2. physics, 3. chemistry and science as a whole.

1.  astronomy isn't "Science".

2.  Post a "Physics Proof" that the Earth is Flat (or a "Spinning-Ball")...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

3.  Post a "Chemistry Proof"  that the Earth is Flat (or a "Spinning-Ball")...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

In summary:

Every Single Conclusion (Directly/Indirectly) you've arrived at here in your 'treatise', rests on your Fallacious (Scientifically Falsified) Premise of the Sun being a "Nuclear Fusion Reactor" .  Ergo...each conclusion is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).

 

regards

[da_man1974]

Very good.  You have managed to assert that you rely on reification and elephant hurling fallacies all in one post.

 

And how do you figure astronomy isn't a science?

Astronomy (from Greek: ἀστρονομία) is a natural science that studies celestial objects and phenomena. It applies mathematics, physics, and chemistry, in an effort to explain the origin of those objects and phenomena and their evolution. Objects of interest include planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and comets; the phenomena include supernova explosions, gamma ray bursts, and cosmic microwave background radiation. More generally, all phenomena that originate outside Earth's atmosphere are within the purview of astronomy. A related but distinct subject, physical cosmology, is concerned with the study of the Universe as a whole.[1]

[MorningGlory]

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

 

 

 

In summary:

Every Single Conclusion (Directly/Indirectly) you've arrived at here in your 'treatise', rests on your Fallacious (Scientifically Falsified) Premise of the Sun being a "Nuclear Fusion Reactor" .  Ergo...each conclusion is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).

 

You just post the same stuff over and over again.  I call that a lack of material fallacy. Or demanding people answer your numbered questions over and over again.  Unreasonable expectations fallacy.