Photoelectric Suspension Theory

Reproduced with permission.

To be able to get the gist of this writing, you will have to understand the basic principles of the daul wave-particle theory of EMR (electromagnetic radiation).

Basically, it is understood and accepted by most physicists, Round or flat earthers that if something acts as a wave then it also has a quantum particle equivalent.  This can account from visible light all the way to gravity (although this is currently undiscovered; quantum physicists suggest that there is such thing and a gravity wave and therefore there has to be a particle of "gravity" which they have called the graviton).

The particle equivilent of any wave in the electro magnetic spectrum is called the photon.  This has no mass because it is only theoretical and is only a way of describing the way in which the EMR behaves, however, it is made up of pure energy (although you could work out the quantum weight of the photon by rearranging Einstein's equation of relativity e=mc²) and to work out the energy of one single photon we can use the equation e=hf (e being energy, h being Plancks constant - 6.626068 × 10^-34 m² kg^-1 - and f being the frequency of the wave equivalent of the photon).  Therefore, the energy contained within each photon depends on the frequency of the wave.  Therefore radiowaves (which have the lowest frequency) have the least amount of energy per photon and Gamma rays (which have the highest frequency) have the most.

So onto the easy part which you guys can understand!

When a photon hits a metal, if it has enough energy, it "kicks" out an electron and therefore positively ionising it.  However for low frequency EMR the photon may not contain enough energy to "kick" out the electron.  For most metals the minimum amount of energy required is that of ultraviolet however the energy required varys from metal to metal and in some cases only the high frequency end of visible light is needed.


What I am proposing is that this is how the sun and moon are kept above the earth. I believe that at some point in time the sun and moon were in fact massice disks of metal that were on top of the earths crust and underneath the earths crust is the molten metal core.  We all know that opposites attract and similars repel. In order for this to workI have to take into account a piece of Round earth science; behind all background radiation is that of the big bang.  This I propose is coming from the UA beneath us. This radiation is all of the wavelengths of the EMS but of course only the correct wavelengths have the right frequencies to take part in the photo-electric effect.  This radiation would ionise the metal in the core and that of the sun and moon above the crust with the same charge therefore repelling each other and forcing the sun and moon upwards and stopping them from falling due to the constant acceleration of the UA.

My theory for their rotation is that the concentration of EMR must fluctuate in a reguluar way, changing the amount of charge forced up on it and therefore weakening/strengthening  the repulsion of the discs therefore allowing them to move in a regular pattern.

Posting in this forum seems to be broken.

CSO Bray asked me to post these FAQs for PEST (photoelectric suspension theory)

Particle physics and the photoelectric effect (as I proposed) most probably have absoltely nothing to do with the fact that the sun is burning and the moon is not.  This doesnt have any relevence to how they got where they are.

Quote

Nucleocosmochronology is not part of RE science

Then why has the conspiricy used it to "prove" the age of the sun and the galactical disc? Surely this is an example of them tricking you into believing the sun has to be of that age.

But that is the easy way out and I refuse to take that stance.

Cosmochronology is based upon the amount of radioactive decay which has occured in longstanding radioactive isotopes such as those of Uranium and Thorium.  What is to say that the half lives of these elements had not been massively shortened by the way that they were stored/the state and where they were in nature before they were mined.

It has been long taught that the hlaf life of radioactive materals cannot be changed by their environment and that they are independant from any other input.  A physicist named Claus Rolfs has discovered that if in the correct environment half lives can be cut down by almost millions of years.

This is done by the radioactive material being cased in another metal, usually a transition metal (although it doesn't really make much difference). This in itself decreases the half life massively and to make it even more effective you can lower the temperature.  The lower the temperature; the faster the radioactive decay.

What’s to say that these radioactive metals such as Uranium and Thorium had not have been in a natural state surrounded by a metal? Whats to say that this wasnt at a temperature lower than room temperature?

In essence this means that cosmochronology may well be completely and utterly flawed and nothing can be proven by the "age" of radioactive metals by the amount of decay that has happened in them.  Thus it would be pretty much impossible to determine the age of the sun/moon because we do not know the environment in which the radioactive metals have been kept.

Also, this theory assumes that these metals were produced by supernovas and waste left from the production of the sun.  All of this relies upon the theory of quantum gravity, which of course on a flat earth, do not exist.


I cannot determine the strength of the repulsion because i would need to know what metals the sun and moon are.  Each metal has its own independant costant of energy needed to ionise it and therefore the flux density of the magnetic force it produces.  Also the hieght of the discs would depend upon the masses of the discs, this is also impossible to know unless I was to know the Atomic mass of the element in them.


Metals can only be ionised in the way i described not non metals.  This would have had the effect it did have on the discs because these would have been single gaint metallic structures and therefore its ionisation(loss of electrons) would have been shared throughout the whole lattice therefore making it become more easily charged than any other metals on the earth.

Quote

Quote:
My theory that IR was coming from the UA maybe flawed, but what is there to say that it isnt coming from somewhere other than the UA? 


If it is then you have to explain it.

It probably is the background radiation of the big bang.  And dont say this is based on gravitational theorem because its not.  Its all about quantum fluctuations in a pure vacuum.

Quote

Quote:
Whats to say that aeroplanes cannot be non-magnetic and therefore protecting the passengers inside?


Can you provide any explanation as to why?/how they would be?

They would be made of a non ionising substance such as a metamaterial.

Quote

Quote:
My theory for their rotation is that the concentration of EMR must fluctuate in a reguluar way, changing the amount of charge forced up on it and therefore weakening/strengthening the repulsion of the discs therefore allowing them to move in a regular pattern. 


That is not logical. What you are proposing would only cause their altitude to vary. They would be going up and down, but not in circle. And it still would not account for the seasons.

Not if the charges were fluctuating so that they effect one side of the disc all the time.  If two points in the core which was particularly strongly ionised were opposite each other and moving round like a bicycle wheel, they would push against one side of the discs and move it along, rather like a ruler turning in a circle pushing two rubbers (or erasers as you call them in America) around with it.

If the the repulsion was to push the sun and moon "north" and south alternately slightly every 6 months then it would variate the amont of sunlight given to the north and southern (for lack of a better word) "hemispheres"(although they would of course not be hemispheres in a flat world)

What is this? A well thought-out and reasoned post with actual physics and math behind it? This thread is the first of its kind here.

I've just noticed that SirChuck raised some pretty interesting points that I didn't raise in these posts!

So I'll answer them now.

Quote from: Robbyj on May 29, 2009, 10:28:43 PM

Search for bowshock.

I found some information here From dogplatters rationalistic mind not from any FE canon:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17930.0

Pretty good but still a few holes to work through.
1) Why don't the earth and moon hit each other being polar equals
2) Why don't the sun and moon depolarize
3) Doesn't satisfactorily give a reason why the sun and moon continue on is a set pattern.

I'll keep reading, who knows maybe he covers it all later.

1) Polar equals repel each other; the earths molten core, the sun and the moon would all have overall positive charges.
2) The same question could be asked about the earths core, I suggest that the EMR flux should be constant (overall, not w.r.t seasons...) and therefore should keep the entities charged.
3) I agree, the explanation of the seasons is a tad shaky. Although the explanation of this fits the pattern, I'd have to conduct research into whether the concentration of cosmic rays varies from season to season in different areas of the earth; thus causing relative "dipoles" of increased positivity and decreased positivity, shifting the position of the sun. All in all this is a theory that fits pretty well. A little bit like relativity, and most of the physics we know it's all based upon assumptions that fit the rule in order for them to be later be proven correct with a discovery! (a little bit like Mendeleevs Periodic table! But not quite so clever...)

In order to keep the Sun and Moon ionized they require a continuous source of energy. If they were metal they would rapidly neutralize the electron field again.
There should be an electron flux between the sun moon and earth. Is there some evidence to support this existence?

What evidence supports the theory that at some point in history the sun and moon were massive metal discs? What observation led to that conclusion?
What wavelengths participate in the PES mechanism? We have the ability to replicate the EM spectrum and thus it should be possible to test the PES idea.
So the Sun, Moon and the Earth currently have a charge and this charge is maintained by the UA? What evidence is there for the flux that must be present to keep the sun and moon charged?

Chronological dating methods for the cosmos are not invalidated by the accelerated radioactive decay observed in recent literature. There is no evidence to support such a notion.

Stating that because quantum gravity doesn?t exist in FE theory and therefore RE theorem using gravitation is invalid is a logical fallacy.

Calling PES a theory is too generous. There is no evidence to support any of the notions and the idea itself is made to support a flat earth. A scientific theory should be made to describe observations and predict behaviour. This does nothing to aid understanding.

In order to keep the Sun and Moon ionized they require a continuous source of energy. If they were metal they would rapidly neutralize the electron field again.
There should be an electron flux between the sun moon and earth. Is there some evidence to support this existence?

What evidence supports the theory that at some point in history the sun and moon were massive metal discs? What observation led to that conclusion?
What wavelengths participate in the PES mechanism? We have the ability to replicate the EM spectrum and thus it should be possible to test the PES idea.
So the Sun, Moon and the Earth currently have a charge and this charge is maintained by the UA? What evidence is there for the flux that must be present to keep the sun and moon charged?

Chronological dating methods for the cosmos are not invalidated by the accelerated radioactive decay observed in recent literature. There is no evidence to support such a notion.

Stating that because quantum gravity doesn?t exist in FE theory and therefore RE theorem using gravitation is invalid is a logical fallacy.

Calling PES a theory is too generous. There is no evidence to support any of the notions and the idea itself is made to support a flat earth. A scientific theory should be made to describe observations and predict behaviour. This does nothing to aid understanding.

PES can be observed, the standard demonstration that almost all kids are shown at A-level when learning about the photoelectric effect is that when two strips of gold leaf are exposed to a UV light they repel each other. It also takes a considerable amount of time for them to regain electrons from passing atoms and stop repelling one another.

  Why would there be an electron flux between the sun, moon and the earth?  The metals are constantly being maintained in their ionised state by cosmic radiation. They are not gaining or losing large amounts of (net) charge.

The sun and moon still are massive metal discs. The observation that the sun and the moon have not yet crashed into the earth is a pretty good indicator that they must be suspended up there.  The observation that like charges repel led to this suitable conclusion.

The work function of the metals that the sun and the moon are constituted of would itself tell you what wavelengths participate in maintaining the ionised state of the discs.  I suggest that it is very likely to be an alloy of low electron affinity metals such as K, Li and Ce along with other elements with higher electron affinities such as C, Si and metals such as Ni and Ir requiring higher energy photons to be ionised.

The evidence to support the invalidation of cosmochronology is that radioactive decay of unstable elements can be and has been accelerated - thus yielding it unreliable as a dating mechanism.

The quantum equivalent of gravity has not been proven to exist yet.  Therefore "quantum gravity" only theoretically exists... so it would be logical to assume that in a flat earth it simply does not exist... as gravity is (as yet) unprovable.

it works, but I can't see why there would be two gigantic discs of metal each 32 miles in diameter sitting on the earth at any given time in the past.

Wouldn't the moon and the sun be seen to vibrate about a certain point xkm from earth then? The elliptical orbit of the moon does possibly allow for this and a mathematical theorem would be appreciated in order to debate this more.

If this was possible, wouldn't scientists have found some way to do it to, like, levitate and all?

Guys, this is not a debate board. Feel free to create topics about this in the debate/discussion boards, but this forum is for the storing of information only. No more posting questions etc.

Guys, this is not a debate board. Feel free to create topics about this in the debate/discussion boards, but this forum is for the storing of information only. No more posting questions etc.

Does that mean I can create a thread here containing information about how the moon and sun are not 32 mile across metal discs, but instead much larger spherical objects that are very far away? Because that would be a thread containing information.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 04, 2009, 04:49:26 AM

Guys, this is not a debate board. Feel free to create topics about this in the debate/discussion boards, but this forum is for the storing of information only. No more posting questions etc.

Does that mean I can create a thread here containing information about how the moon and sun are not 32 mile across metal discs, but instead much larger spherical objects that are very far away? Because that would be a thread containing information.

Only if they are above a Flat Earth.  Now scoot.