The Boring Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by Aardwolf » Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:26 am

fosborn_ wrote:It's funny even though I guess, it's not to be discussed in this forum, how compatible this theory is with the flat Earth theories. All the NASA fraud. Phantom sun, no stars seen in space. All objects are self illuminating. No valid distance measurements.

I'm not mocking, honest.
Just an observation that bubbled up in my Charlie Brown "Blockhead".....
( I may not know if I know anything. But it helps when pondering some valid arguments, no matter how outrageous the theory may seem. Many thanks to GaryN..)
Not really a valid comparison as flat earth theories haven't been genuinely regarded for 6-8 thousand years, long before any established scientific methods. The modern theories are mock theories.

However, it's a shame you don't hold to account actual dark matter, dark energy, gravity wave etc. theories which are essentially made up fairy tales pushed by the mainstream to support a dead paradigm.

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:51 am

Not really a valid comparison as flat earth theories haven't been genuinely regarded for 6-8 thousand years, long before any established scientific methods. The modern theories are mock theories.
Sorry your not making any sense to me. Why is it an invalid comparison, as far as the specific points I made? Because the accepted science rejects it ? Its your opinion, just can't connect your dots.
However, it's a shame you don't hold to account actual dark matter, dark energy, gravity wave etc. theories which are essentially made up fairy tales pushed by the mainstream to support a dead paradigm.
Aardwolf

Posts: 1329
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:56 am
Just wondering why I would care in the context of this post or this non science section of the board.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:41 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Not really a valid comparison as flat earth theories haven't been genuinely regarded for 6-8 thousand years, long before any established scientific methods. The modern theories are mock theories.
Sorry your not making any sense to me. Why is it an invalid comparison, as far as the specific points I made? Because the accepted science rejects it ? Its your opinion, just can't connect your dots.
This is a genuine theory being presented (whether you agree with it or not). Flat earth theories are not genuine theories therefore it's not valid to elevate it to theory status to simply ridicule the proponent of the post.
fosborn_ wrote:
However, it's a shame you don't hold to account actual dark matter, dark energy, gravity wave etc. theories which are essentially made up fairy tales pushed by the mainstream to support a dead paradigm.
Aardwolf

Posts: 1329
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:56 am
Just wondering why I would care in the context of this post or this non science section of the board.
I know you don't care about criticizing those "theories". I wasn't expecting a reply it was just an observation. If you bothered to criticise you would see flat earthers have far more in common with dark matter proponents. They're dealing in fantasy with no empirical proof, bordering on religious beliefs. Banishing unbelievers and heretics from their forums etc. Elevating the key theorists to god like status and regarding their writings as gospel that can't be unproven.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:47 pm

fosborn
Why is it an invalid comparison, as far as the specific points I made?
The evidence for the Earth being a sphere, and the Moon and Mars and other planets and moons too meets my criteria for having been scientifically proven, whereas there is no evidence that the stars or even our Sun are visible from true space, not LEO, as absolutely no empirical scientific proof is available.
Flat Earth, mad idea. Invisible Sun, new insight, the masses just haven't cottoned on yet.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:34 pm

From:
Popular Astronomy, Vol. 36, 1928, p.74,75,76
Heat Of the Sun.—I have no doubt what I am about to write will meet with skepticism and be considered as a vagary of an untrained mind. Be it so, I have the satisfaction to know that the scientific world is no nearer a solution of the sun's heat, than a guess. I think there is sufficient merit in the theory I herewith advance, to at least
bespeak some consideration of scholars who are deep in sidereal lore.
I am aware that mankind is slow to accept the unusual and does not take kindly to ideas unless promulgated by well known authority. Many writers are prone to cling to popular authorities for a long time without question. Scientists have many times found it necessary to revise accepted formulas. Many theories have been advanced to account for the heat of the sun. This little article may call forth discussion leading to a correct solution of this unsettled question.
It not Surprising that one feeling the warmth of the sun's rays should look upon it as a heated body. If so, we must consider that this heat must be radiated through a space of 93,000,000miles; we wonder how it is possible for any substance to endure a heat so intense that we can feel its influence so far away and itself not be dissipated. C. A Young asks, 'How is such heat maintained? How long has it lasted already? How long will it continue? Are there any signs of either increase or diminution—questions to which, in the present state of science, only vague and unsafactury replies are possible." Forest Ray Moulton, I believe quoting Mr. Young. says, "Many different theories have been proposed, two of which now chiefly occupy the field. One of them finds the chief source of solar heat in the impact of meteoric matter. the other, in the slow contraction of the sun. The temperature is far beyond that required to melt or vaporize any known terrestrial substance. Many methods have been used for obtaining the temperature Of the sun, but most of them have rested on physical principles, which are unsound." One writer suggests that the sun is of or contains a large proportion of radium. With all the theories, they so far do not try to get away from the idea of radiation from a hot body, The sun's rays are different from any heat or light rays, produced by combustion of any substance on earth—more diffusive. I notice that after discarding the idea of a superheated sun, they fall back on the compression theory to explain the wonderful warming of this great luminary and cling to the thought of direct heat radiation. The experimenter in the use of his intricate apparatus, for measuring solar heat, does not take into consideration the combined effect of light and air, which might be quite different were it possible to measure the heat above the air.
The effect of the light ray on the atmosphere must surely lead one astray as to the ray per se. He is simply measuring the combined action of light and air.
The nearer we approach a heated body on earth, the more we feel the heat; on the contrary the nearer we approach the Sun the cooler we find the atmosphere, as evidenced by the aviator's experience as he ascends, and the perpetual snow on the highest mountains. This should cause to wonder if the Sun is really hot. Then arises the question: If the sun is not hot, What then is the explanation of the heat we receive from that source?
Perhaps there is a satisfactory answer to this world-age question, one that will clear up this much mooted phenomenon. We are told that everything is in a sort of vibration, nothing stands absolutely still. Our brain receives knowledge of the world through vibrations impinging on our organs of sense. All life and growth is the result of vibration and circulation. The heat of the sun is no exccption to this law.
The sun's rays coming from a distance of 93,000,000 miles, at the astonishing rate of 186,000 miles per second, every atom of atmosphere receives the impact of a tremendous blow, coming with inconceivable rapidity. This onslaught on every atom, or molecule of the atmosphere, causes friction and vibration sufficient, together With an electro—Chemical action, to account adequately for all the heat we receive from thig great orb of day.
Einstein states that beams of light have mass and weight, are deflected from a straight line by gravitation. Hence, if the sun's rays are proven to have weight it is reasonable to assume that their impinging on the atmospheric body would cause agitation and Vibration to account for the heat we receive from the sun. I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct. The sun is not hot, but gives us heat by the action of its rays on the intimate structure of the atmospheric through the vibrations of its electrons.
E. A. Converse M.D.
2327 N. W. 26th Miami Fla., October 24, 1926.
"I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct." Wouldn't Mr Convese be shocked to find that 60 years or so after the advent of space flights and many scientific experiments, that the experiments to prove or disprove his theories have still not been performed.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

perpetual motion
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: criticizing thunderbolts and cosmology

Unread post by perpetual motion » Tue Dec 24, 2019 11:50 pm

Here’s some more argumentation on the
subject of light rays. I just can not believe (oh yes I can)
that people just keep it up and not read between the lines
Is that all experiments are in the atmosphere of this planet,
which is composed of gas. There is not any light in the
outer spaces.
These frequencies (rays) that are being mentioned are all made
within this planets atmosphere.
This Hubble scope that is so famously relied on is orbiting within this planets atmosphere.
These scientists that are behind this mess have to make things
look good so that they can keep their jobs.
Of most posts that are on this forum it is already cataloged, shot down, repeated
and discussed over and over again till they are blue in the face.
I would bet that this Hubble scope will not see rain bow colors in
the blackness of space. They or we need an atmospheric gas and water vapor to see colors.
If you read anything on this forum it is a lost cause, everybody’s mind
Is already made up, there isn’t any way to talk to them. They know all.
As long as there is two people on any planet, they will always argue. One will always
try and OUT DO the other.
Enough.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:48 pm

I found a free e-book of The Sun by Charles Augustus Young, the fellow quoted in the above article By Mr Converse. It can be downloaded from Google Books.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=2kIJAA ... at&f=false
Very interesting to see the science, methods and reasoning applied at that time to a study of the Sun. With no access to space of course, they were limited to the assumption that light and heat were emitted from the Sun directly, a reasonable assumption given the messages sent to our brains by or senses. However, assumptions should never be made when the scientific tests are simple and readily available, as they are now if you have access to clear space. Unfortunately only those who do not want the status quo challenged have this access.

perpetual motion
...that people just keep it up and not read between the lines
Is that all experiments are in the atmosphere of this planet,
which is composed of gas.
If, as Horace Winfield Webster proposed, all light begins as gamma rays, then how far out of Earths atmosphere would we need to be to ensure that the a view of the Sun was affected to the least possible extent by such atmosphere? It must be at minimum outside of the Van Allen belts, as if gamma radiation interacts with both matter and electric or magnetic fields, then there would be much happening within the Van Allen belts themselves even before the lower atmosphere comes into play. Cislunar space would be preferable for the experiments.

The true nature of the Sun can not be fully understood by hard science alone, their must be an understanding and acceptance of the spiritual component. The ancient wise ones, the ascended Masters throughout recorded history have told us of the Suns true nature, and our inherent connection to the original creative force, but in post-Constantine Christianity at least, this truth has been obfuscated greatly by the removal of the parts of the Bible that were obviously pagan in nature, along with other parts suggestive of off-world or scientifically advanced entities.

I know that none of the Safire team could ever produce what I consider to be empirical scientific evidence of visible light or thermal infrared emissions directly from the Sun, but in looking at some of the teams bios I feel there would be some willing to consider the Sun in a spiritual way, and it is encouraging to see that on youtube there is a growing movement of those who believe science and spirituality working together can help us better understand the nature of our own reality, in particular the still unexplained by science phenomena of consciousness.

As we move into the Age of Aquarius, there will be an increasing awareness of the existence of the universal consciousness, brought about perhaps by the relationship of the planets to the Sun, EM forces directly affecting the way our brains function, and the Bible read, as it should be, as a mystical document would seem to tell us just that. I am very optimistic that in the not too distant future a tipping point will be reached, the awakening of a few minds will spur a wider awakening, and then the realisation of just how the masses have been kept ignorant of their true potential will, must, lead to the overthrow of those who would keep us in the dark. The non-visibility of the Sun or stars from clear space would, or should be, the killing blow, the decapitation perhaps, of the oppressors, and the dawning of a new age of understanding.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by Webbman » Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:47 am

you have to keep in mind that the idea is to keep you distracted with endless lies and half truths. Is it not working?
its all lies.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Dec 28, 2019 7:38 pm

GaryN wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:48 pm
The ancient wise ones, the ascended Masters throughout recorded history have told us of the Suns true nature, and our inherent connection to the original creative force, but in post-Constantine Christianity at least, this truth has been obfuscated greatly by the removal of the parts of the Bible that were obviously pagan in nature, along with other parts suggestive of off-world or scientifically advanced entities.
Be careful of what you claim, lest someone like me come along and challenge you to provide physical, textual evidence of the supposed 'changes' made to texts which have remained virtually unchanged, excepting a small percentage of scribal errors during copying, as attested by all extant manuscript evidence.

Of the 5,800 extant Greek manuscripts, which ones had paganism edited out of them? Cite manuscript names and edited locations.
Of the 10,000 extant Latin manuscripts, which ones had paganism edited out of them? Cite manuscript names and edited locations.
Of the 9,300 extant Versional (languages other than Greek or Latin, eg. Syriac, Ethopic, Georgian, Armenian) manuscripts, which ones had paganism edited out of them? Cite manuscript names and edited locations.
Of the ~11,000 extant Hebrew-Aramaic manuscripts, including the Qumran collection, which ones had paganism edited out of them? Cite manuscript names and edited locations.

For all cases of the above hypothesised 'pagan editing', please name and cite the attested exemplars of manuscripts which preceeded the period of Constantine's 'editing', including Greek/Latin/Versional quotations of the unedited 'originals'. Keep in mind that there are some ~80 extant manuscripts or portions thereof, including the mostly complete Codex Sinaiticus, dating from or prior to Constantine's reforms, in addition to the 200 Qumran manuscripts and a few LXX manuscripts, so your claims are easily verifiable or falsifiable.

I posit, however, that you actually have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:29 am

..lest someone like me come along..
And you are? Certainly changes have been made to the texts, you really think there was a Jesus, or Peter, Paul and Mary in the middle East at that time?
How were the books of the Bible chosen?
https://www.biblica.com/resources/bible ... le-chosen/
"Gradually it became clear which works were truly genuine and which mixed truth with fantasy." Arbitrary decisions by men with suspect motives I'd say.
I posit, however, that you actually have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.
You will need to convince me somehow that you speak with any authority whatsoever.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:26 am

A 7 year student of Biblical textual criticism (BTh, G.Dip.Div, MTh[in progress]), in addition to being both a member and supporter of the Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

I gave you 4 clear, testable criteria by which your thesis could have been validated or falsified. Given the reticence and complete lack of critical analysis in your response I am left to conclude that there remains minimal, if at all any, evidence from the extant manuscripts for your hypothesis, or you simply cannot be bothered doing actual research to support your claim.

If the texts were deliberately purged, changed and standardised against 'paganism' after the council of Nicea, 325 CE, there ought to be immense and noticeable divergences in favour of 'paganism' in the extant texts preceding the supposed changes. Having personally read many of the oldest Greek papyrii and uncials, I can tell you that 'immense and noticeable divergences in favour of paganism' and purging of the same from texts preceding Nicea never happened. So sure am I of this conclusion that I predict no future textual discoveries, forgeries notwithstanding, will refute this fact.

B.M. Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament (Clarendon Press, 1987) remains a standard reference work on the historical development and acknowledgement of the documents the Christian faith has always treated as authoritative. You might like to read more than a random, google-searched internet article if you actually have any intention of thinking critically about this particular question.

Moderator Note - Thread continued here:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/ph ... f=11&t=153

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests