| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Baphomet" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2008 10:46:37 AM |
| Object: |
flat sun theory |
if the sun was a sphere (ball) then wouldn't you expect a shell formation
of things that rotate around it, as opposed to a semi-linear formation of
planets that rotate around it, a cylindrical (disk with a width) would
result in a different formation of rotating bodies, the semi-linearity is
due to the rest of the flat/disk, width=0, shaped suns imparting disk
related force fields or gravity fluxes, behind all these disks is one sun
that shines, and is most likely a sphere, actual linearity/alignment of
planets is related to the relationship between such disks, and their
relationship to the one sun that shines
--
Joann http://carpet.blog.com/
shy http://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me - http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
.
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: flat sun theory |
02 Feb 2008 04:20:05 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 11:46 am, Baphomet <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
if the sun was a sphere (ball) then wouldn't you expect a shell formation
of things that rotate around it, as opposed to a semi-linear formation of
planets that rotate around it, a cylindrical (disk with a width) would
result in a different formation of rotating bodies, the semi-linearity is
due to the rest of the flat/disk, width=0, shaped suns imparting disk
related force fields or gravity fluxes, behind all these disks is one sun
that shines, and is most likely a sphere, actual linearity/alignment of
planets is related to the relationship between such disks, and their
relationship to the one sun that shines
--
Joannhttp://carpet.blog.com/
shyhttp://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me -http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
You posted the same assertion 3 days ago.
It was blown out of the sky.
Nothing has changed since then.
Maybe YOU wouldn't "expect a shell formation of things that rotate
around it", but conservation of angular momentum, inelastic
collisions, and statistical mechanics make it inevitable.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: flat sun theory |
03 Feb 2008 12:11:38 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 11:46=A0am, Baphomet <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
if the sun was a sphere (ball) then wouldn't you expect a shell formation
of things that rotate around it, as opposed to a semi-linear formation of
planets that rotate around it, a cylindrical (disk with a width) would
result in a different formation of rotating bodies, the semi-linearity is
due to the rest of the flat/disk, width=3D0, shaped suns imparting disk
related force fields or gravity fluxes, behind all these disks is one sun
that shines, and is most likely a sphere, actual linearity/alignment of
planets is related to the relationship between such disks, and their
relationship to the one sun that shines
--
Joannhttp://carpet.blog.com/
shyhttp://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me -http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
You do realize that a flat disc does not have an inverse square
gravitational force law, don't you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baphomet" |
|
| Title: Re: flat sun theory |
03 Feb 2008 01:01:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:11:38 -0800, Igor wrote:
You do realize that a flat disc does not have an inverse square
gravitational force law, don't you?
F=ma
F= the integral of m*a
F=Sma
mass is constant, it is a disk, not a Sun
acceleration is a pure variable for a disk
it is speed/kinetics, not acceleration/flux, that results
speed is linear and linear interactions (kinetics)
the field of kinetics
sum the linear vectors
up, down, left, right, and the combinations
the combinations sum to up, down, left, right,
it has a rotational field therefore, and not flux/shell field
--
Joann http://carpet.blog.com/
shy http://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me - http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: flat sun theory |
03 Feb 2008 01:27:37 PM |
|
|
On Feb 3, 2:01 pm, Baphomet <dale.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:11:38 -0800, Igor wrote:
You do realize that a flat disc does not have an inverse square
gravitational force law, don't you?
F=ma
F= the integral of m*a
Integral with respect to what variable?
F=Sma
....and "S" means what?
mass is constant, it is a disk, not a Sun
"Mass" is a "disk"? You ate the mushrooms, didn't you?
acceleration is a pure variable for a disk
it is speed/kinetics, not acceleration/flux, that results
speed is linear and linear interactions (kinetics)
the field of kinetics
sum the linear vectors
up, down, left, right, and the combinations
the combinations sum to up, down, left, right,
it has a rotational field therefore, and not flux/shell field
You DID eat the mushrooms!!!
Joannhttp://carpet.blog.com/
shyhttp://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me -http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_club#Outlaw_Motorcycle_Gangs
"What goes around, comes around." - Galatians 6:7
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baphomet" |
|
| Title: Re: flat sun theory |
03 Feb 2008 07:51:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:27:37 -0800, tadchem wrote:
"What goes around, comes around." - Galatians 6:7
Jesus was no lamb, etc., he mocked the Saducees and Pharisees, he didn't
bear his cross, he did turn the other cheek, game over
--
Joann http://carpet.blog.com/
shy http://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me - http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baphomet" |
|
| Title: Re: flat sun theory |
03 Feb 2008 09:17:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:51:41 -0600, Baphomet wrote:
did
didn't
--
Joann http://carpet.blog.com/
shy http://sheilafeistyshy.blogspot.com/
me - http://barphomet.blog.com/
1% - I give to law what law gives to me
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
