It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if the Sun was not Spherical?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   


What if the sun was not a sphere?
What if it was bowl-shaped?

I know that sunspots are proof the sun rotates, so they say, anyway.
But what if the sunspots were only traversing across the back side of the sun bowl?
After all no one can really explain differntial rotation, right?



What if the sun front side always faced earth.
Why also is there a defined ring around the sun? To me, it seems as if there is some kind of light source hitting the back side.

I'm an artist by trade, so when things look funky, I have to question the experts. Hope you don't mind.

Plumbo




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I believe spheres are the nature of things in space.
If you have no other forces on matter then it would all clump together as a sphere.
Similar to if you had an hourglass. When you flip it all the grains fall and shape a cone. IF you took a fist full of sand in a anti-grav environment all the sand should be attracted by its own mass (gravity) and form a ball. Assuming of coarse they are not already in motion.

I'll look around later and see if I can find any wab sites about this.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
We know the sun exerts a massive amount of gravity so ignoring everything else I don't see how it could be anything other than a sphere. Everything is being pulled towards its center including the stuff that makes up the sun. Knowing this a bowl shaped sun would be impossible because it would collapse on itself.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
We know the sun exerts a massive amount of gravity so ignoring everything else I don't see how it could be anything other than a sphere. Everything is being pulled towards its center including the stuff that makes up the sun. Knowing this a bowl shaped sun would be impossible because it would collapse on itself.


Yea, I see your point, but what exactly is gravity anyway?
I've asked this question to 'experts' and they can't give me a technical definition for it. I'm convinced no one can. I don't even believe it exists. If you've read any of Velikovsky's work on gravitation, perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from.

www.varchive.org...

Read paragraph 11 & 12....

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Yea, I see your point, but what exactly is gravity anyway? I've asked this question to 'experts' and they can't give me a technical definition for it. I'm convinced no one can.
[edit on 11-2-2005 by Plumbo]


I know you asked KL this but I'm not doing anything so I'll add some input.

Here is an expert on Gravity his name is Sir Isaac Newton. He is dead so we wont be able to ask him in person.


Basically everything is attracted to each other if you and I were floating around in space relatively close to each other eventually we will be drawn together.
If I was a big fat guy and you were a little girl you would be attracted to me. IE smaller masses are attracted to larger masses. Other forces like friction will slow or stop this action.

m2 is me m1 is you.

The same thing will happen with the atoms of a star like our sun. Atoms are attracted to each other making larger complete masses. As there is no other forces interfering with the gravity here they will form in a shape of a ball.
This is why the sun is round as well as the Earth and the moon.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Even wonder why we only see the near side of the moon?
I mean we never see it rotate on its' axis. They say it rotates in sync with earth's rotation, I just find that too easy to believe.

If you compare both sides of the moon, they seem VERY different.
THe near side almost looks like it has splatter marks left on a concave surface, not convex....

I mapped the surface of the moon onto a bowl shaped object as well.
It looks a lot more correct, aestetically speaking...

THe far side, I left alone though.

Plumbo




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   


Basically everything is attracted to each other if you and I were floating around in space relatively close to each other eventually we will be drawn together.
If I was a big fat guy and you were a little girl you would be attracted to me. IE smaller masses are attracted to larger masses. Other forces like friction will slow or stop this action.

The same thing will happen with the atoms of a star like our sun. Atoms are attracted to each other making larger complete masses. As there is no other forces interfering with the gravity here they will form in a shape of a ball.
This is why the sun is round as well as the Earth and the moon.


hmm, this seems too simplistic, this is not a definition of gravity, sorry. I don't think Newton could even define it. You're both just stating that there is a force and then describing the qualities of that force.

sorry, not good enough.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I'm confused. Are you actually stating that you think that the Sun and moon are half-spheres or bowls?

Because if you are...I'm very worried about you



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Plumbo you have a good healthy ability to question things. You are also were good in graphic design. However the pictures you have made prove nothing. Instead of questioning the physics that we have all been learning since grade 6 science, perhaps you can back up your bowl pictures with something more solid?

As for your moon questions the people at NASA that study the moon for a living (and get paid quite well for it) have made this nice video clip for us to see. spaceflight1.nasa.gov.... Just press play on the remote control.


TPL

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The sun is definitely a sphere, as is the moon.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
Plumbo you have a good healthy ability to question things. You are also were good in graphic design. However the pictures you have made prove nothing. Instead of questioning the physics that we have all been learning since grade 6 science, perhaps you can back up your bowl pictures with something more solid?

As for your moon questions the people at NASA that study the moon for a living (and get paid quite well for it) have made this nice video clip for us to see. spaceflight1.nasa.gov.... Just press play on the remote control.



Yeah, Umbrax, that's what I was saying, I know the explanation, but don't you think it's a little too convenient, that it sycs up perfectly. I mean PERFECTLY! There isn't even a slight difference in acceleration/deceleration.

Why not? I know what we've all been taught.

btw, thanks for the compliment on my work!

Plumbo



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
From my vantage point, there seems to be a magical answer in saying the word gravity to explain things are the way they are.

For example:

Question #1: We are told the earth spins. Well, if the earth really does spin, then why are not we and every thing else, whipping off of it like a little toddler off a twirling merry-go-round?

Answer: gravity holds us down.

Question #2: Well, if gravity holds us down, then why does the earth bulge at the equator?

Answer: The earth spins.

Question #3: Well if the earth spins, then why are we not whipping off of it like a tooddler.....

Answer: Gravity holds us down.

Question #4: Why does gravity oppose logic of physics?

Answer: Because it is gravity. Gravity is the magic force, Luke Skywalker, that holds everything down.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
From my vantage point, there seems to be a magical answer in saying the word gravity to explain things are the way they are.

For example:

Question #1: We are told the earth spins. Well, if the earth really does spin, then why are not we and every thing else, whipping off of it like a little toddler off a twirling merry-go-round?

Answer: gravity holds us down.

Question #2: Well, if gravity holds us down, then why does the earth bulge at the equator?

Answer: The earth spins.

Question #3: Well if the earth spins, then why are we not whipping off of it like a tooddler.....

Answer: Gravity holds us down.

These three questions and answers are not contradictory at all (not to mention overly simplistic). I have absolutely no clue how you came to that conclusion



Question #4: Why does gravity oppose logic of physics?

Wow...wow...

OK, these are just random questions as I try to comprehend this all-

1. Do you have any sources beyond a single 60-year old theory from a guy who's other work has been pretty much proven wrong?
2. Speaking of convenience, isn't it convenient that every single object in the universe has it's convex side facing us, instead of it's concave? Isn't it also convenient that the earth is, in fact, spherical?
3. Are you actually aware that you're insane? You've totally ignored hundreds of years of scientific advancement because you think the pcitures you made 'look right.' We have pcitures, too. Real pictures. Pictures that show these objects to be spherical.
4. Ignoring #3, we have pictures of many, many objects in the solar system that are spheres. Are you suggesting only the sun and moon are magically bowls?
5. Wow...I still can't get over this.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I prefer to think of gravity not as a force but the effect of a mass curving space-time. Since someone here is a graphic artist they may be able to depict this curvature. Take a tarp somewhat outstretched and flat and then throw a heavy mass onto it. This mass will curve the tarp or a two dimensional representation of our space. The curvature of space-time has effects on other objects in space and that's what we have been calling this effect (gravity). In other words, space-time is like the fabric of the universe and objects in space are bending space-time. The bigger or massive the object, the more the object curves space.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
OK, these are just random questions as I try to comprehend this all-

1. Do you have any sources beyond a single 60-year old theory from a guy who's other work has been pretty much proven wrong?


Well, not really. But if you don't mind, I'd like to quote this 60 year old theory from a guy (of whom I do not accept all his teachings).
Moreover, why do you idolize a guy whose 300-year old theory is solely based upon myth?:


Newton explained the principle underlying the motion of the planets and the satellites by the example of a stone thrown horizontally from a mountain with such force that gravitation bends its flight so that it revolves around the earth, coming back to exactly the same place, once again to repeat the course of its flight. But he admits “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions,” and invokes an act of Providence in providing each satellite with a tangential push of a strength which, together with the pull of the primary, creates an orbit.


hmm. This buffoon sounds more like a religionist than a scientist.


2. Speaking of convenience, isn't it convenient that every single object in the universe has it's convex side facing us, instead of it's concave? Isn't it also convenient that the earth is, in fact, spherical?


You didn't respond to my convenience question about the moon.
Why can't you explain it? Explain it, and then I'll try to explain your presupposed convenience question.


3. Are you actually aware that you're insane? You've totally ignored hundreds of years of scientific advancement because you think the pcitures you made 'look right.' We have pcitures, too. Real pictures. Pictures that show these objects to be spherical.


There's really no need to start lambasting names. If I am insane, then please help me get back to reality. However, with a quick self-inspection, I've concluded that I'm not insane because I am aware of hundreds of years of scientific advancement. If scientific advancement cannot explain the simplest of questions, namely, what is gravity and why are there contradictions in it's laws, then what is wrong with seeking alternative answers?


4. Ignoring #3, we have pictures of many, many objects in the solar system that are spheres. Are you suggesting only the sun and moon are magically bowls?


Well, yes.


5. Wow...I still can't get over this.


I appreciate any response. That shows that you've actually taken the time to look at my ideas. Now, if you'll please allow me to further my inquiry, I'd like to ask another question about the pictures of the celestial orbs that we have so many of.

And that is, what if there was some sort of lens filter that actually skewed our perception of the orbs? Like, say, a glass lens, that created an opposite curvature, residing between the earth and space. Kind of like how a spoon creates wield optical effects when swishing it through a glass of water. What if the earth's atmosphere was made up of glass? After all, isn't the fusion crust of a meteorite made up of glass? What if the crust actually originated from the glass rim of the atmosphere instead of the rock? Maybe this is why the Space Shuttle is covered with material called frit. Frit is an abrasive glass that coats the shuttle's tiles. Maybe frit is used to prevent fusion crust from accumulating onto the shuttle craft.

Also, maybe that would explain rainbows a little better, too. Spectrums can only be created by white light filtering through glass, like a prism. Tiny raindrops alone are not a good enough reason to create a spectrum. I believe they are merely a surface in which the glass-filtered light is projected onto.

h-hah, I'm an artist, so I question these things. Hope you don't mind.

What d'y'think?

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
I prefer to think of gravity not as a force but the effect of a mass curving space-time. Since someone here is a graphic artist they may be able to depict this curvature. Take a tarp somewhat outstretched and flat and then throw a heavy mass onto it. This mass will curve the tarp or a two dimensional representation of our space. The curvature of space-time has effects on other objects in space and that's what we have been calling this effect (gravity). In other words, space-time is like the fabric of the universe and objects in space are bending space-time. The bigger or massive the object, the more the object curves space.


Well, I get your word-picture Orion, but I don't really want to waste my time rendering this. It seems too far-fetched to me. This sounds "overly simplistic". Space is not 2-dimensional, it's 3-dimensional. Besides, you're still not explaining what causes the heavy mass to fall onto the tarp. Did the hand of Providence throw it there?

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Yes it is 3-dimensional. I was too lazy to go back and correct that so please forgive me. As far as the weird thought of glass in the atmosphere creating a rainbow of colors instead of water, how do you explain the spectrum of colors you see when you shoot the spray from a water hose up towards the sun and see a rainbow of colors? Are you saying the water is turning into glass?

As far as how a mass got into this space-time, you could say it was providence that created all and made all objects explode out from a central point to create all that we see. Of course some things collide with others and form new objects.

I got a question for you, why do you think the sky is blue here on Earth while scientists say it is different colors such as red on other planets?

On the surface of Venus, I believe the landscape does appear opposite to that here on Earth. The horizon looks higher up than where you are at if you were standing on the surface. I thought I read that somewhere. I believe that is an optical illusion of the atmosphere.

One optical illusion you can observe here on Earth is the moon. When you see the moon close to the horizon, it will appear bigger than when it is higher up in the sky. I don't believe the moon is actually getting larger and smaller that often. It's an optical illusion.


[edit on 13-2-2005 by orionthehunter]



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
Yes it is 3-dimensional. I was too lazy to go back and correct that so please forgive me. As far as the weird thought of glass in the atmosphere creating a rainbow of colors instead of water, how do you explain the spectrum of colors you see when you shoot the spray from a water hose up towards the sun and see a rainbow of colors? Are you saying the water is turning into glass?


c'mon Orion, don't you think I thought of that?
Like I said, the water is a mere surface of projection, whether it is tiny droplets in the sky or a sprayed mass from a garden hose. Both have projected onto them glass filtered light. I thought you were smarter than this.

Before you go any further into disagreement, yes, even a flashlight, which produces a spectrum of colors uses glass filtered light, the bulb is glass.


As far as how a mass got into this space-time, you could say it was providence that created all and made all objects explode out from a central point to create all that we see. Of course some things collide with others and form new objects.


I'm not sure by this statement, if you are a creationist or a big bang believer, or both. Either way, you still are being kind of silly. (and simplistic).


I got a question for you, why do you think the sky is blue here on Earth while scientists say it is different colors such as red on other planets?


It has to do with water.

But you really need to stop listening to what you are told by scientists and start reasoning things within yourself and asking your creator. There's a saying in the old testament that cursed is the man who trusts in man, and blessed is the man who trusts in God. I think you should stop taking groups like nasa as gospel, and find out for yourself what truth is.


One optical illusion you can observe here on Earth is the moon. When you see the moon close to the horizon, it will appear bigger than when it is higher up in the sky. I don't believe the moon is actually getting larger and smaller that often. It's an optical illusion.


Yes that is very true, Orion.

Do you know why there is an optical illusion?................

It's the glass!

The glass causes the opposite effect in scale and temperature...
Let me explain, at dusk and dawn, we feel the coolness of the day, say, on a hot summer day, and yet, the sun looks HUGE, on the other hand, when we feel the intense heat in mid afternoon, the sun looks it's tiniest-

The exact opposite of what we see and feel!!!

This is because there are 2 optical views of reality.

There is the Actual, and there is the Perceived.

We see the heavens through the glass filter, therefore we have a skewed perception of what is real....Perceived.

Do you understand yet?

Welcome to the new reality! It is not what you would have ever imagined.

Since I'm an artist(I'm being phecetious), I have illustrated this phenomenom in graphic form, if you would like to see it, let me know.

But I must warn you, it gets kind of scarey from here on......

Plumbo

[edit on 14-2-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   


I think that, at least, it's pretty safe to say that the side of the moon facing us is convex.

Beyond that, to go with your theory of cosmic bowls and glass-covered atmospheres: What does that say about our [physical] universe? We can argue about the philosophical, and metaphysical implications of such a scenario until the cows come home, but what physical properties can we deduce from such a scenario?



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whiskey Jack


I think that, at least, it's pretty safe to say that the side of the moon facing us is convex.


I wouln't say that it's safe. But I like and welcome your attempts to disprove me, it shows you're thinking, Whiskey Jack. Good effort, but not good enough. This animation can go either way, concave or convex. Just like the sun fabrication I rendered, which is concave facing us. The slight 'rotation' is not a rotation at all. It is merely the area of the concave moon falling under the bulging illusion created by the glass lens as the moon travels across the sky revealing different areas of the concave surface. There still lies no lunar rotation, which is a camel swallower to say the least.


Beyond that, to go with your theory of cosmic bowls and glass-covered atmospheres: What does that say about our [physical] universe? We can argue about the philosophical, and metaphysical implications of such a scenario until the cows come home, but what physical properties can we deduce from such a scenario?


Well, if you exclude fictitous gravity out of the equation, the physical properties of the so-called universe make perfect sense.

But you need to accept one major foundational truth. One which you are not ready to accept because you have not yet accepted there is glass up in the sky. This is a closed mind in the face of proof. The glass is there, it's on the meteorites, it causes rainbows. Ask yourself, why is there such an extreme temperature exchange when the space shuttle enters the atmosphere? Isn't it extremely cold up there? Why the intense heat?

Well, if you can understand that rubbing two object together causes heat by friction, then you can come closer to accepting the truth about the glass.
Also, did you know what happen when you rub quartz crystals together?

It creates light!..... www.primitiveways.com...

Do you know what quartz crystals are composed of? Do you know what glass is composed of?.....Silicon dioxide!...the SAME material.

hmmm, now consider what happens to the night sky when a meterorite crashes through......

It BRIGHTENS up the sky. Makes it look like day!
hmm, no wonder the space shuttle doesn't want to come home at night, among the obvious other reason.

This truth cannot be completely accepted without the purest of objectivity. It clashes with all understanding of what modern science has taught us. But this truth explains, with the utmost simplicity some of the mysteries of science which could not have been previously explained.

Let me know when you're ready for more...

[edit on 15-2-2005 by Plumbo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join