do polar ice caps disprove ret?

take a sphere. shine a light on it, and i mean a big light. in ret the sun is a sphere, shining light out all directions. over half the surface of the sphere will be covered. it follows, under ret, that the majority of the earth's surface is covered in sunlight and so heat.
why have the poles frozen, in that case? for half the year, they are continually being heated by the sun, each. they should long since have melted. instead, we have two ice caps.

it seems far more likely that the sun we see in the sky is not what is responsible for the world's heat. if it were, the places that see it (such as the poles where it never sets for many months) should not be frozen solid.

The poles are colder than the earth of the planet because sunlight hits the surface at a very low angle and the energy is spread over a far wider area. Add to that an increased amount of atmosphere to pass through and an extremely high albido due to the snow and ice and there is very little heat energy that is imparted to the poles.

Now watch J desperately cling onto this stupidity despite widespread mockery and disproofs.

I didn't read his post, but I am sure the premise is just as plausible as his post about evolution and space travel.  Basically a failure. 

take a sphere. shine a light on it, and i mean a big light. in ret the sun is a sphere, shining light out all directions. over half the surface of the sphere will be covered. it follows, under ret, that the majority of the earth's surface is covered in sunlight and so heat.
why have the poles frozen, in that case? for half the year, they are continually being heated by the sun, each. they should long since have melted. instead, we have two ice caps.

Don't forget that those same places where the Sun is above the horizon for half the year, it's below the horizon for the other half. Heat that radiates into space during the long night isn't replenished by the Sun, so the temperature gets well below freezing. After the Sun rises again, the temperature does climb, but the surface is so cold it takes a lot of energy to raise it to even close to freezing. Since the Sun never rises very high in the sky during the long day, it doesn't impart much energy to the surface; this is the same reason that sunlight doesn't feel nearly as hot in the morning and evening as it does when the Sun is high in the sky.

it seems far more likely that the sun we see in the sky is not what is responsible for the world's heat. if it were, the places that see it (such as the poles where it never sets for many months) should not be frozen solid.

This may seem likely to you, but once again you're confusing uninformed opinion with reality. Can you calculate the amount of solar energy a square meter of the surface at the pole receives in 24 hours at the solstice, ignoring atmospheric effects? How does this compare to the amount of solar energy received by a square meter at the Equator in 24 hours at the equinox, again, ignoring atmospheric effects?[nb]The answer may surprise some people.[/nb] How do these compare over the period of a full year? How is this affected by the atmosphere? Unless you can analyze the situation with more rigor than what "seems to make sense", what seems likely and unlikely is irrelevant.
 

take a sphere. shine a light on it, and i mean a big light. in ret the sun is a sphere, shining light out all directions. over half the surface of the sphere will be covered. it follows, under ret, that the majority of the earth's surface is covered in sunlight and so heat.
why have the poles frozen, in that case? for half the year, they are continually being heated by the sun, each. they should long since have melted. instead, we have two ice caps.

it seems far more likely that the sun we see in the sky is not what is responsible for the world's heat. if it were, the places that see it (such as the poles where it never sets for many months) should not be frozen solid.

Here's  question for you,  that might help you understand better.  why is it colder in winter when the sun is lower on the horizon,  and warmer in summer when the sun is higher in the sky?
The answer is the same as the reason the poles are colder, and the equator is hotter.  The earth is tilted on its axis,  and that tilt is enough to cause the annual seasonal weather patterns.

Having cleared that up,  there is also a lot of heat which comes from radioactivity decay in the crust and mantle as well as the heat from the molten core.  Not sure what %,  but you could google it.

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

But what is wrong in what they say? It seems very convincing to me.

amazing. sunlight travels millions of miles, and yet a tiny stretch of 'air' makes all the difference. let's also remember that it's cold in and around airplanes, and at the tops of mountains, where if their logic holds the sun should be more intense.
heat comes from inside the earth. that is the only way to explain how it's warm on the surface, and colder away from it.

amazing. sunlight travels millions of miles, and yet a tiny stretch of 'air' makes all the difference. let's also remember that it's cold in and around airplanes, and at the tops of mountains, where if their logic holds the sun should be more intense.
heat comes from inside the earth. that is the only way to explain how it's warm on the surface, and colder away from it.

I think you could be right. The sun supplies light, so obviously there is some heat energy associated with that, but the roundies make an illogical jump to thinking it supplies all heat.

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

See, you are confusing 'something taught at school' with 'crap'. Do you disagree with evolution? Cell theory? Basic physics? Any of that? All YOU have to argue with here is the crap you make up on the spot.

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on April 30, 2015, 04:46:51 AM

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

See, you are confusing 'something taught at school' with 'crap'. Do you disagree with evolution? Cell theory? Basic physics? Any of that? All YOU have to argue with here is the crap you make up on the spot.

I never said everything taught I school was wrong. Please stop misrepresenting me.

Some of us have been able to break the programming and see the truth.

amazing. sunlight travels millions of miles, and yet a tiny stretch of 'air' makes all the difference. let's also remember that it's cold in and around airplanes, and at the tops of mountains, where if their logic holds the sun should be more intense.
heat comes from inside the earth. that is the only way to explain how it's warm on the surface, and colder away from it.

The question you are asking is why does it get colder as you go higher,  is just a property of gases,  as the pressure decreases it gets colder.  For a planetary atmosphere it's call the adiabatic lapse rate.  The rate of temperature change with altitude depends on the moisture content,  if it's dry air then you don't get inversions,  if it's moist air then you can get an inversion layer,  this marks the bottom of the cloud layer.   As warm moist air rises it reaches a  point where the water condenses and we get clouds.   

If you want to dig further, you are getting into meteorology.   Which is getting a bit far from the original question.   

heat comes from inside the earth. that is the only way to explain how it's warm on the surface, and colder away from it.

Then why doesn't the heat coming from the inside of the earth melt the ice caps?  Also, how do you explain solar hot water systems?

Shine a light in a sphere and note that the light apears more intense at the side of the sphere facing the light and less intense near the terminator line.  That's because the light is more spread out when the Sun is at an angle because the same amount of light has more land to heat.  The poles always have the Sun shining on them at a low angle and so there is not much heat for a large amount of space.

amazing. sunlight travels millions of miles, and yet a tiny stretch of 'air' makes all the difference. let's also remember that it's cold in and around airplanes, and at the tops of mountains, where if their logic holds the sun should be more intense.
heat comes from inside the earth. that is the only way to explain how it's warm on the surface, and colder away from it.

Have you done these calculations yet?

Can you calculate the amount of solar energy a square meter of the surface at the pole receives in 24 hours at the solstice, ignoring atmospheric effects? How does this compare to the amount of solar energy received by a square meter at the Equator in 24 hours at the equinox, again, ignoring atmospheric effects? How do these compare over the period of a full year? How is this affected by the atmosphere?

It's obvious you haven't. Why not?

Unless you can analyze the situation with more rigor than what "seems to make sense", what seems likely and unlikely is irrelevant.

This is still the case. Unless you can pony up some facts to back up your opinion, you're just an opinionated blowhard.

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

Firstly, you need to know that JRS is one of the more irrational flat earthers here, and he has invented a lot of flat earth "data" and "facts" that he's simply made up on an ad hoc basis.

Anyway, if schools allegedly teaching "crap" and "brainwashing" kids is the best argument you have about polar ice caps not melting under the heat of the sun, then you don't really have a valid argument do you?  No science?  No astronomy?  No geophysics?  Just childish name-calling.

You will have to do a lot better than that my flat earth friend LOL.

Quote from: Techros on April 30, 2015, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on April 30, 2015, 04:46:51 AM

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

See, you are confusing 'something taught at school' with 'crap'. Do you disagree with evolution? Cell theory? Basic physics? Any of that? All YOU have to argue with here is the crap you make up on the spot.

I never said everything taught I school was wrong. Please stop misrepresenting me.

Some of us have been able to break the programming and see the truth.

An I've seen the truth that we all have teapots following us. They hide when we look, but the goverment knows, and they don't want us to know. OOOH! SCARY!

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on April 30, 2015, 06:53:55 AM

Quote from: Techros on April 30, 2015, 06:50:35 AM

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on April 30, 2015, 04:46:51 AM

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

See, you are confusing 'something taught at school' with 'crap'. Do you disagree with evolution? Cell theory? Basic physics? Any of that? All YOU have to argue with here is the crap you make up on the spot.

I never said everything taught I school was wrong. Please stop misrepresenting me.

Some of us have been able to break the programming and see the truth.

An I've seen the truth that we all have teapots following us. They hide when we look, but the goverment knows, and they don't want us to know. OOOH! SCARY!

Is that why my tea cup is always topped off?  That is not scary at all!!!!

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on April 30, 2015, 04:46:51 AM

Good point JRowe.

All the roundies have to argue with here is the crap they were brainwashed with at school.

Firstly, you need to know that JRS is one of the more irrational flat earthers here, and he has invented a lot of flat earth "data" and "facts" that he's simply made up on an ad hoc basis.

Anyway, if schools allegedly teaching "crap" and "brainwashing" kids is the best argument you have about polar ice caps not melting under the heat of the sun, then you don't really have a valid argument do you?  No science?  No astronomy?  No geophysics?  Just childish name-calling.

You will have to do a lot better than that my flat earth friend LOL.

Why would I need a better argument? This isn't my proposal, it's JRowes. Can't you follow a thread?

amazing. sunlight travels millions of miles, and yet a tiny stretch of 'air' makes all the difference. let's also remember that it's cold in and around airplanes, and at the tops of mountains, where if their logic holds the sun should be more intense.
heat comes from inside the earth. that is the only way to explain how it's warm on the surface, and colder away from it.

Air bends and refracts light and it also full of dust which absorbs the light.

As alluded to by other posters, the higher you go in the atmosphere the thinner the air is, and therefore the less heat can be retained.

The sun quite clearly heats the planet as demonstrated by a day with clouds in the sky. When the sun goes behind a cloud, you will feel noticeably cooler as you will receive less radiant heat. When it comes back out you feel warmer.

And finally to rebut your point, you'll agree that it is warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Surely if the earth was heated from inside the heating would be even...?

And finally to rebut your point, you'll agree that it is warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Surely if the earth was heated from inside the heating would be even...?

And thats exactly why the earth can't be round. Well done, you've proved the point, not rebutted it!

Quote from: Mainframes on May 01, 2015, 05:47:24 AM

And finally to rebut your point, you'll agree that it is warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Surely if the earth was heated from inside the heating would be even...?

And thats exactly why the earth can't be round. Well done, you've proved the point, not rebutted it!

Please explain this conclusion. It makes no sense at all.

Quote from: Itchy_Arris on May 01, 2015, 07:12:30 AM

Quote from: Mainframes on May 01, 2015, 05:47:24 AM

And finally to rebut your point, you'll agree that it is warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Surely if the earth was heated from inside the heating would be even...?

And thats exactly why the earth can't be round. Well done, you've proved the point, not rebutted it!

Please explain this conclusion. It makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because he's trolling,  last time it was his personal spiritual consultant who stole his laptop.  This time I think it's his home care therapist having an off day.

The question you are asking is why does it get colder as you go higher,  is just a property of gases,  as the pressure decreases it gets colder.
not even close. the sun's apparently providing heat, not gas. why would less gas mean less heat?! you are insisting the opposite is the case for behavior at the poles.

Firstly, you need to know that JRS is one of the more irrational flat earthers here, and he has invented a lot of flat earth "data" and "facts" that he's simply made up on an ad hoc basis.
completely false. educate yourself before you make such patenttly bs claims. dual earth theory is well defined, and there is no ad hoc behavior whatsoever, everything is explained by well-defined and simple rules which are themselves logical deductions. you cannot just lie about a theory and act like you've made a point.

you'll agree that it is warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Surely if the earth was heated from inside the heating would be even...?
educate yourself on the interior of a dual earth. there is less space between the center of the earth and the equator, than between the sun and the poles.

The sun quite clearly heats the planet as demonstrated by a day with clouds in the sky. When the sun goes behind a cloud, you will feel noticeably cooler as you will receive less radiant heat. When it comes back out you feel warmer.
really, so a scattering of water molecules is single-handedly capable of noticably reducing heat that's travelled millions of miles?
clouds are just reflections of behavior at the core of the earth.

amazing how you resort to fictional air and still can't come up with an answer.

The question you are asking is why does it get colder as you go higher,  is just a property of gases,  as the pressure decreases it gets colder.
not even close. the sun's apparently providing heat, not gas. why would less gas mean less heat?! you are insisting the opposite is the case for behavior at the poles.

Firstly, you need to know that JRS is one of the more irrational flat earthers here, and he has invented a lot of flat earth "data" and "facts" that he's simply made up on an ad hoc basis.
completely false. educate yourself before you make such patenttly bs claims. dual earth theory is well defined, and there is no ad hoc behavior whatsoever, everything is explained by well-defined and simple rules which are themselves logical deductions. you cannot just lie about a theory and act like you've made a point.

you'll agree that it is warmer at the equator and colder at the poles. Surely if the earth was heated from inside the heating would be even...?
educate yourself on the interior of a dual earth. there is less space between the center of the earth and the equator, than between the sun and the poles.

The sun quite clearly heats the planet as demonstrated by a day with clouds in the sky. When the sun goes behind a cloud, you will feel noticeably cooler as you will receive less radiant heat. When it comes back out you feel warmer.
really, so a scattering of water molecules is single-handedly capable of noticably reducing heat that's travelled millions of miles?
clouds are just reflections of behavior at the core of the earth.

amazing how you resort to fictional air and still can't come up with an answer.

Amazing that you blame your ignorance of science on others.

The question you are asking is why does it get colder as you go higher,  is just a property of gases,  as the pressure decreases it gets colder.
not even close. the sun's apparently providing heat, not gas. why would less gas mean less heat?!

Less gas means less retained heat.

The sun quite clearly heats the planet as demonstrated by a day with clouds in the sky. When the sun goes behind a cloud, you will feel noticeably cooler as you will receive less radiant heat. When it comes back out you feel warmer.
really, so a scattering of water molecules is single-handedly capable of noticably reducing heat that's travelled millions of miles?
clouds are just reflections of behavior at the core of the earth.

Heat is an EM wave that can travel thousand and thousands of millions of miles through a vacuum, which does nothing to dissipate it in any way.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on May 01, 2015, 09:09:57 AM

The question you are asking is why does it get colder as you go higher,  is just a property of gases,  as the pressure decreases it gets colder.
not even close. the sun's apparently providing heat, not gas. why would less gas mean less heat?!

Less gas means less retained heat.

And yet, in space, in sunlight it's like 200 degrees or so.

And yet, in space, in sunlight it's like 200 degrees or so.

Once you are in to the vaccuum of space, it is very difficult to cool down, since you have no air to conduct heat in to.