Posting in this forum seems to be broken.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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)
Print