The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Sorunx on June 25, 2011, 03:27:02 PM
-
Q: "Why has no one taken a photo of the Earth that proves it is flat?"
A: Only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned. Also, nobody has been to the edge of the Earth and lived; conditions on the Ice Wall get increasingly treacherous the further you get out, and navigation methods become unreliable that far south. It is also possible that the Conspiracy is guarding the edge to prevent people from getting too close to the truth.
Anybody with some free time, and some extra cash can reach those heights. If everybody in your society donated 10 dollars you could do it too. Numerous amateurs can send crude craft into the upper reaches of the atmosphere, so are you saying this guy is part of the conspiracy too?
-
Those high altitude balloons at the edge of the atmosphere are looking down at a circle.
-
Those high altitude balloons at the edge of the atmosphere are looking down at a circle.
Then, at the very least you acknowledge that the statement in your FAQ is wrong. You could also make one yourself to verify your sentiment.
-
When did Tom acknowledge that?
When he acknowledged that everyday people can send those baloons high up enough into the atmosphere, it directly contradicts your FAQ statement that only those connected to the conspiracy can.
-
No, the FAQ states that only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
The high altitude balloons allow us to discern nothing explicit regarding the overall shape of the Earth.
Incorrect, Tom himself has acknowledged that in the RE model that a height of 60,000 feet is required to discern the shape of the earth. Those balloons can exceed that height. (Also he is wrong)
the FAQ requires updating, random everyday people now have to be considered part of the conspiracy.
-
No, the FAQ states that only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
The high altitude balloons allow us to discern nothing explicit regarding the overall shape of the Earth.
Incorrect, Tom himself has acknowledged that in the RE model that a height of 60,000 feet is required to discern the shape of the earth.
I didn't say that. I said 60,000 feet is where one starts to see some slight curving to the horizon.
In FET this is because one is looking down at a circle.
Only NASA & Co. can get to such extraordinary distances beyond the earth as to allegedly see the entire earth as a globe. Hence the FAQ is correct.
-
No, the FAQ states that only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
The high altitude balloons allow us to discern nothing explicit regarding the overall shape of the Earth.
Incorrect, Tom himself has acknowledged that in the RE model that a height of 60,000 feet is required to discern the shape of the earth.
I didn't say that. I said 60,000 feet is where one starts to see some slight curving to the horizon.
In FET this is because one is looking down at a circle.
Only NASA & Co. can get to such extraordinary distances beyond the earth as to allegedly see the entire earth as a globe. Hence the FAQ is correct.
Video I posted did show a clear round shape, likewise you are incorrect about only NASA and Co being able to reach that height. FAQ requires updating.
-
No, the FAQ states that only those connected to the Conspiracy have access to heights from which the shape of the Earth can be discerned.
The high altitude balloons allow us to discern nothing explicit regarding the overall shape of the Earth.
Incorrect, Tom himself has acknowledged that in the RE model that a height of 60,000 feet is required to discern the shape of the earth.
I didn't say that. I said 60,000 feet is where one starts to see some slight curving to the horizon.
In FET this is because one is looking down at a circle.
Only NASA & Co. can get to such extraordinary distances beyond the earth as to allegedly see the entire earth as a globe. Hence the FAQ is correct.
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
-
Video I posted did show a clear round shape
Yes. A circle.
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though. The lit portions would be some strange sort of ellipse. If you keep wanting to claim a "circular spot light" you would have to rework the FE map to make the time zones fit properly into a "circular spot light"
Berny
Tom making stuff up again
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
thanks
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
this is why:
actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
thanks
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
this is why:
actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
thanks
I didn't see where you demonstrated that the sun's spotlight has to be elliptical and not circular.
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
Because the areas of land that are lit at any one time in no way resemble a circular spot light on the classic FE projection or any RE projection. The spotlight would have to change size and shape depending on seasons. In fact imagine the shape of the spotlight as it has to deal with the southern areas.
You may argue against the 24 hour day in the antarctic is a phony or hoax but the fact is that places like Puerto Williams and Punta Arenas during their summer months where it never gets darker than twilight. That same sun has to also light up Australia - completely opposite of the map.
Berny
And its not bendy light phenomena
-
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
Because the sun provides almost exactly 12 hours of daylight to the equator every day of the year. A circular spotlight can't do that on a flat earth. That is, unless you can provide a map where this is possible.
-
if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.
A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.
Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
this is why:
actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
thanks
I didn't see where you demonstrated that the sun's spotlight has to be elliptical and not circular.
correct, i did not. i demonstrated that the Sun's spotlight cannot illuminate only parts of the Earth at a time. the spotlight would still cast light on the entire FE. that is it actual problem with the spotlight-Sun model (among others)
-
correct, i did not. i demonstrated that the Sun's spotlight cannot illuminate only parts of the Earth at a time. the spotlight would still cast light on the entire FE. that is it actual problem with the spotlight-Sun model (among others)
As light passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered, or faded, or something of the sort. Therefore, the light would be more concentrated at the closest point to the Sun on the Earth.
-
correct, i did not. i demonstrated that the Sun's spotlight cannot illuminate only parts of the Earth at a time. the spotlight would still cast light on the entire FE. that is it actual problem with the spotlight-Sun model (among others)
As light passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered, or faded, or something of the sort. Therefore, the light would be more concentrated at the closest point to the Sun on the Earth.
even so, the light would still be visible (even though dimmer) from all places on the FE.
again, this is not observed.
also, the phenomenon you mentioned is called Compton Scattering, which scatters light by the following equation:
L' - L = h/(mc) ( 1 - cos(A) ),
where
L' is the final wavelength of the light,
L is the initial wavelength,
h is Planck's constant (h = 6.626 * 10^(-34) J s),
m is the mass of the object it scatters off (typically an electron; m = 9.11 * 10^(-31) kg),
c is the speed of light (c = 3.00 * 10^8 m/s), and
A is the angle that the light is scattered.
However, the light doesn't get faded at all, it still has the same intensity. it only shifts in wavelength, so the color changes.
So actually, the Compton Effect would spread the light out more, making the distribution of light more even, not more concentrated.
Thus, the Compton Effect is a bigger problem for FET.
-
The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.
Why not?
Because the sun provides almost exactly 12 hours of daylight to the equator every day of the year. A circular spotlight can't do that on a flat earth. That is, unless you can provide a map where this is possible.
Very good point. Tom ? Any FEer ?
-
I don't understand - why can't it supply the 12 hours light 12 hours dark at the equator?
-
I don't understand - why can't it supply the 12 hours light 12 hours dark at the equator?
Because, when you put a round spotlight on a flat earth, you can't get 50% coverage of that flat earth.
(http://i9.tinypic.com/623f6eb.gif)
-
Very nice graphic, thanks!
It would be interesting to play around with that some to see what size and shape spot would be needed to concur with standard observations of the sun. Like the equinox, solstices, etc.
-
Very nice graphic, thanks!
It would be interesting to play around with that some to see what size and shape spot would be needed to concur with standard observations of the sun. Like the equinox, solstices, etc.
Not to be inflammatory, but shouldn't a competing theory have to show that it predicts certain phenomena - like the variation of daylight hours - better or at the same level as the other theory, before even it's believers take it seriously?
Also, please see the following thread because it brings up the point that the current model of the FE Sun cannot shine light on just one part of the Earth at a time, it must illuminate (even slightly) the entire Earth all the time.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
(Specifically "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" at the bottom. Thanks)
-
I own a flashlight. It does not illuminate my entire house at once. I have often worked as a spotlight operator. The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.
And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens. This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.
-
I don't understand - why can't it supply the 12 hours light 12 hours dark at the equator?
Because, when you put a round spotlight on a flat earth, you can't get 50% coverage of that flat earth.
(http://i9.tinypic.com/623f6eb.gif)
You're assuming that the sun's spotlight is 1/4th of the earth's surface.
How do you know that the spotlight doesn't extend beyond the North Pole and stretch further Southward and take up greater surface area?
-
You're assuming that the sun's spotlight is 1/4th of the earth's surface.
How do you know that the spotlight doesn't extend beyond the North Pole and stretch further Southward and take up greater surface area?
Then why don't you provide a picture that shows how a "spotlight sun" can provide 12 hours of daylight to the equator every day of the year, while also providing the appropriate variable length days north and south of the equator?
-
You're assuming that the sun's spotlight is 1/4th of the earth's surface.
How do you know that the spotlight doesn't extend beyond the North Pole and stretch further Southward and take up greater surface area?
Then why don't you provide a picture that shows how a "spotlight sun" can provide 12 hours of daylight to the equator every day of the year, while also providing the appropriate variable length days north and south of the equator?
I have never seen evidence that all parts of the equator receives exactly 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.
Even in RET, the equator does not receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year. The sun is not over the equator throughout the year, it's constantly moving Northward and Southward between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn
-
True Tom, but the day/night are close to equal in the tropics. In places like Quito, Ecuador the sun comes up at 6:30 AM, goes down at 6:30 PM most of the year. Farther north in Hawaii there is more variation, but still nothing like what is seen in Europe.
BTW, the solstice is not the longest day in the tropics.
-
I have never seen evidence that all parts of the equator receives exactly 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.
Believe it or not, there are cities on or near the equator and I'm sure that residents of those cities can provide first hand testimony as to how many hours of daylight they receive.
Even in RET, the equator does not receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year. The sun is not over the equator throughout the year, it's constantly moving Northward and Southward between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn
In FET, the equator doesn't receive 12 hours of daylight any day of the year, yet inhabitants of equatorial cities seem to observe otherwise. A simple orrery can demonstrate how it's possible for the sun to illuminate 1/2 of the equator any day of the year.
(http://www.murrayhudson.com/antique_globes/08163g.jpg)
-
Even in RET, the equator does not receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year. The sun is not over the equator throughout the year, it's constantly moving Northward and Southward between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn
No. The RE sun can still provide 12 hours of sun throughout the year. It just follows a different arc in the sky at different times of the year for people on the equator. I've checked this using a rotating globe at home (with the axis at an angle) at different point in the room. Try it yourself.
This is not possible on a FE.
-
There is something a bit odd about that orrery. Notice it?
-
Believe it or not, there are cities on or near the equator and I'm sure that residents of those cities can provide first hand testimony as to how many hours of daylight they receive.
Yeah, but in RET they would only be receiving 12 hours of daylight a year if the sun was over the equator throughout the year. It's not.
A simple orrery can demonstrate how it's possible for the sun to illuminate 1/2 of the equator any day of the year.
(http://www.murrayhudson.com/antique_globes/08163g.jpg)
If the earth were tilting forward and backwards every 6 months the sun would not give the ring of the equator 12 hour days.
-
There is something a bit odd about that orrery. Notice it?
The Moon is backwards?
-
If the earth were tilting forward and backwards every 6 months the sun would not give the ring of the equator 12 hour days.
Yes it would. At any orientation of a globe, half it's equator will be visible. The only exception is if you are looking straight down or straight up on the globe.
Try it on any spherical object with an equator.
-
If the earth were tilting forward and backwards every 6 months the sun would not give the ring of the equator 12 hour days.
Perhaps this will illustrate the RE axis tilt a little better:
(http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/pictures/07reasons-for-seasons-flashlight.gif)
http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/
BTW, I don't see you providing any illustrations of how the FE equator could ever receive 12 hours of daylight on any day of the year.
-
BTW, I don't see you providing any illustrations of how the FE equator could ever receive 12 hours of daylight on any day of the year.
It has not been demonstrated that the equator receives 12 hour days.
-
BTW, I don't see you providing any illustrations of how the FE equator could ever receive 12 hours of daylight on any day of the year.
It has not been demonstrated that the equator receives 12 hour days.
Not even on the days of the equinox? As I said, there are cities on or very near the equator. First hand testimony from their residents is readily available.
-
Yeah, me! Ive been there (or close) and seen it.
-
BTW, I don't see you providing any illustrations of how the FE equator could ever receive 12 hours of daylight on any day of the year.
It has not been demonstrated that the equator receives 12 hour days.
Not even on the days of the equinox? As I said, there are cities on or very near the equator. First hand testimony from their residents is readily available.
Where is it readily available? I've never seen anything of the sort.
-
Look at the post above yours, Tom.
-
Look at the post above yours, Tom.
Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.
-
Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.
There is no source that you would ever accept, except for what you see first-hand.
-
BTW, I don't see you providing any illustrations of how the FE equator could ever receive 12 hours of daylight on any day of the year.
It has not been demonstrated that the equator receives 12 hour days.
Not even on the days of the equinox? As I said, there are cities on or very near the equator. First hand testimony from their residents is readily available.
Where is it readily available? I've never seen anything of the sort.
From Belem, Brazil
For today
Sunrise at 6:16 AM in direction 67° East-northeast
Sunset at 6:19 PM in direction 293° West-northwest
Duration of day: 12 hours, 2 minutes (same as yesterday)
Sun in north at 12:17 PM at altitude 65° above horizon
And Mombassa, Kenya
Sunrise at 6:28 AM in direction 67° East-northeast
Sunset at 6:22 PM in direction 293° West-northwest
Duration of day: 11 hours, 53 minutes (1 second longer than yesterday)
Sun in north at 12:25 PM at altitude 63° above horizon
Djibouti, Djibouti
Sunrise at 5:48 AM in direction 66° East-northeast
Sunset at 6:37 PM in direction 294° West-northwest
Duration of day: 12 hours, 49 minutes (7 seconds shorter than yesterday)
Sun in north at 12:12 PM at altitude 79° above horizon
Suva, Fiji
Sunrise at 6:38 AM in direction 66° East-northeast
Sunset at 5:41 PM in direction 294° West-northwest
Duration of day: 11 hours, 3 minutes (9 seconds longer than yesterday)
Sun in north at 12:10 PM at altitude 49° above horizon
Galapagos, Ecuador
Sunrise at 6:00 AM in direction 67° East-northeast
Sunset at 6:04 PM in direction 293° West-northwest
Duration of day: 12 hours, 4 minutes (same as yesterday)
Sun in north at 12:02 PM at altitude 66° above horizon
All this are within 10 degress of the Equator North or South. All are showing within 12 hours and some odd minutes of sunlight. I chose these places not by random choice but they've all been places where I have personally been.
Berny
BTW If you play the not has been demonstrated because I refuse to acknowledge when its clearly been giving I will start to use your logic in all the forums until a mod admonishes me.
-
Interesting that the sun was highest in Djibouti today.
It's fun in the northern tropics to watch the sun head North of you in June , then come back over in July.
-
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=446
<snip>
All this are within 10 degress of the Equator North or South. All are showing within 12 hours and some odd minutes of sunlight. I chose these places not by random choice but they've all been places where I have personally been.
Berny
BTW If you play the not has been demonstrated because I refuse to acknowledge when its clearly been giving I will start to use your logic in all the forums until a mod admonishes me.
That's a calculator, not first-hand observation.
-
Do we really have to prove to you what happens outside every day for thousands of people? Do you honestly believe NOBODY would notice soemthing was wrong and say "Hey... I don't think those sunrise sunset times are correct..."? Tom, admit you are wrong and just fix FET.
-
Do we really have to prove to you what happens outside every day for thousands of people?
Thousands of people are not timing every second of their day to compare and contrast alternative world models.
-
Do we really have to prove to you what happens outside every day for thousands of people?
Thousands of people are not timing every second of their day to compare and contrast alternative world models.
No, but there are many people who like to watch sunsets.
-
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=446
<snip>
All this are within 10 degress of the Equator North or South. All are showing within 12 hours and some odd minutes of sunlight. I chose these places not by random choice but they've all been places where I have personally been.
Berny
BTW If you play the not has been demonstrated because I refuse to acknowledge when its clearly been giving I will start to use your logic in all the forums until a mod admonishes me.
That's a calculator, not first-hand observation.
Check bolded.
Berny
Prove it wrong.
-
No, but there are many people who like to watch sunsets.
Hopeless romantics in third world countries are not ideal sources of scientific inquiry.
Check bolded.
Berny
Prove it wrong.
I've been to New York. That doesn't mean that I've studied the heavens throughout the year from that location.
-
Hopeless romantics in third world countries are not ideal sources of scientific inquiry.
Not ideal, but they have never noted a discrepancy in times listed in various sources. Which says something.
EDIT: This really is stupid. Normally, people try to make theories conform to reality. Not the other way around.
-
Hopeless romantics in third world countries are not ideal sources of scientific inquiry.
Not ideal, but they have never noted a discrepancy in times listed in various sources. Which says something.
I really doubt that 20 year old Miguel and Maria are looking for discrepancies in sunset times.
But even if they did, what makes you think that you would hear about it? Do you think that the first thing they'd do would be hire an English translator and jump on the phone with the an american media outlet about it, or that an american media outlet would run such an uninteresting story?
-
No, but there are many people who like to watch sunsets.
Hopeless romantics in third world countries are not ideal sources of scientific inquiry.
Check bolded.
Berny
Prove it wrong.
I've been to New York. That doesn't mean that I've studied the heavens throughout the year from that location.
With the exception of Fiji I travelled to those cities by ship. While sailing I was taught basic sextant use and the noon times where extremely important to us. And while I never excelled the officers all continued to use celestial navigation as back up. You may herp derp all you want just because something doesn't agree with you like you have in the past but each time you do it makes you sound like a silly person.
Berny
TB is being a very silly Homo.
-
As a number of members here (even noobs) have seen these first hand and even lived with them, that does it for me. Maybe if I had not seen it myself, but I have.
I'll work a bit on a graphic to see what shape the "spotlight" would have to be to achieve this effect.
EDIT: Cross post with Berny.
-
I'll work a bit on a graphic to see what shape the "spotlight" would have to be to achieve this effect.
See, Tom? This is called being productive.
-
Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.
-
Forum oldies are not to be trusted.
Ha!
-
Forum noobs are not trustworthy sources.
What makes you a more reliable source?
-
Well Tom has put together an impressive collection of FE lit and links. You gotta give him that.
-
Hopeless romantics in third world countries are not ideal sources of scientific inquiry.
Not ideal, but they have never noted a discrepancy in times listed in various sources. Which says something.
I really doubt that 20 year old Miguel and Maria are looking for discrepancies in sunset times.
But even if they did, what makes you think that you would hear about it? Do you think that the first thing they'd do would be hire an English translator and jump on the phone with the an american media outlet about it, or that an american media outlet would run such an uninteresting story?
Tom Bishop, foreign policy adviser to President Palin. I predicted it first!!!
Any the people at universities? Sailors? Astronomers? The thousands (millions?) of people who can speak English in these place?
Like a lot of small-world Americans, Tom needs to get out of his armchair more.
-
Tom now thinks the daylight hours are in on the conspiracy too? I'm starting to think that maybe this "bad conspiracy" is actually Tom's unconscious mind telling him that he means something to the world and everyone is going out of their way in order to fool him. Tom, you're just a little too paranoid for your own good.
-
Because, when you put a round spotlight on a flat earth, you can't get 50% coverage of that flat earth.
OK Markjo. I made my own animation, inspired by yours. In mine, the spotlight is not round, but oval. This is quite possible with a human built spotlight, as are other shapes. So you can see that the light of the sun could have a shape that allows for 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness.
(http://tinyurl.com/3sx8rvw)
Comments?
-
OK, that's a start. Now you need to figure out what pattern the sun would need to generate at the winter and summer solstices.
-
Yea, I'm working on it! Berny is already bugging me about it.
-
That's pretty cool, nice animation! ;D
Tom should adopt this over his silly "the sunrise/sunset times are wrong" argument.
-
Yea, I'm working on it! Berny is already bugging me about it.
Congratulations you have no surpassed Tom on doing something.
Berny
Not being sarcastic, Noob has done more.
-
Thanks guys! ;D
(Don't forget - newbie here also went to the Bedford level and posted his results)
-
Thanks guys! ;D
(Don't forget - newbie here also went to the Bedford level and posted his results)
Vote for A.R. Wallace for Mod?
Berny
+1
-
OK, I made a nice animation of my "Oval Spotlight" that shows equal daylight at the equinox, more daylight in the north in June (including 24H arctic days) and more daylight in the south in December (24H ice wall days.)
Now I just gotta figure out how to embed a Flash file here.
EDIT: No luck. The Flash tag and html tags don't seem to be turned on. Oh well!
-
never heard of an oval spotlight, but i do like your animation.
more evidence against the FAQ, i am really starting to like you Wallace, you should be a mod, and be part of rewriting the FAQ with Lard Willmire and James.
-
OK, here is a link to the Flash animation. Sorry I couldn't embed it here. It works pretty well, give it a whirl. See what mistakes you can find.
http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm (http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm)
-
OK, here is a link to the Flash animation. Sorry I couldn't embed it here. It works pretty well, give it a whirl. See what mistakes you can find.
http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm (http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm)
That is excellent work there!
never heard of an oval spotlight, but i do like your animation.
more evidence against the FAQ, i am really starting to like you Wallace, you should be a mod, and be part of rewriting the FAQ with Lard Willmire and James.
So we're up to +2 on for you being a mod.
Now it's getting late and I have to deal with Canada festivities (I will not be festivating but working) but I would now like to know if your ovoid spotlight will coincide with the sun's actual position latitude and longitude. I think longitude right now would be the most important because its the simplest to find if you have an accurate time piece.
Berny
Making A.R. Wallace work for it
-
OK, I made a nice animation of my "Oval Spotlight" that shows equal daylight at the equinox, more daylight in the north in June (including 24H arctic days) and more daylight in the south in December (24H ice wall days.)
Now I just gotta figure out how to embed a Flash file here.
EDIT: No luck. The Flash tag and html tags don't seem to be turned on. Oh well!
The conspiracy at work?
-
Just gonna leave this here...
It is impossible for the Sun to be a spotlight regardless if you can draw it out or not (which you cannot).
I refer you to this thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
Specifically, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" farther down.
Please explain that.
Thanks, be cool.
-
OK, here is a link to the Flash animation. Sorry I couldn't embed it here. It works pretty well, give it a whirl. See what mistakes you can find.
http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm (http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm)
That's just brilliant.
So obviously the only real question is what might cause an obviously circular sun to produce an oval spotlight effect on the Earth.
-
OK, here is a link to the Flash animation. Sorry I couldn't embed it here. It works pretty well, give it a whirl. See what mistakes you can find.
http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm (http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm)
Good try, but the equator is getting more than 12 hours of daylight at the summer solstice and less than 12 hours of daylight at the winter solstice. It should receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.
I seem to remember that someone already did a very nice set of animations showing the seasonal daylight patterns projected onto a FE map, but I can't seem to find them. I suppose that I need to lurk some more. :(
-
Markjo's right, but I definitely think it's a step in the right direction.
-
Good try, but the equator is getting more than 12 hours of daylight at the summer solstice and less than 12 hours of daylight at the winter solstice. It should receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.
Actually I don't think it quite does. The sun moves north and south of the equator, so there is some change in daylight hours, just not much. We can look that up.
The main problem with my animation is that although it provides 24 hour of darkness in June down at the ice wall, it does not get anywhere near the long days in the southern summer. I.E., it works well north of the equator, but not south of it.
Back to the drawing board.
As for a round looking sun having an oval beam, that is not all that hard. Many PAR lights (think rock n roll lighting) have an oval beam but look round - the lens is round, the beam is not. Also car headlights have a shaped beam bu appear round. So the sun easily could, too.
-
Good try, but the equator is getting more than 12 hours of daylight at the summer solstice and less than 12 hours of daylight at the winter solstice. It should receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.
Actually I don't think it quite does. The sun moves north and south of the equator, so there is some change in daylight hours, just not much. We can look that up.
Here you go:
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/whys/day_equator.htm
http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/scripter/geog100/lect/02-energy-seasons-atmosphere/02-pt-2-the-seasons.htm
-
EIGHT MINUTES ARE A LOT AND THE EARTH IS ROUND
lol you
-
Thanks Markjo. I had already looked up sunrise/sunset times for Quito and forgot to report back.
Although the times change a bit, the length does not vary much. Not enough to worry about, anyway. I does change much more near the tropics.
I will see if I can get my sunlight shape to fit this.
-
EIGHT MINUTES ARE A LOT AND THE EARTH IS ROUND
lol you
I'm sorry, but are you trying to make a point? If so, then please do so.
-
I own a flashlight. It does not illuminate my entire house at once. I have often worked as a spotlight operator. The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.
And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens. This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.
Every now and then somebody shows such a mind-boggling ignorance of the most basic physics that I must ask myself if they live in the same planet as I do. Apparently A.R. Wallace does not (or is just trolling).
The inverse square law applies always! Even if you use a laser to produce the light and focus the beam with the best care, light will stray from the straight line because light is a wave! If you do not want your light dissipating as the inverse square law predicts, you have to send it through an optical fiber.
If you really have been a spotlight operator in a theater you will know that everyone in the auditorium can see the spotlights from every place in the theater unless there is a curtain or something else between the spotlight and the observer. And you will see that when several spotlights are in use the whole audience is lightly illuminated.
If you want a perfect stream of something that will not disperse, try water.
-
I'm sorry, but are you trying to make a point? If so, then please do so.
My point is your sources show that the difference is 8 minutes. That is not a large difference, as opposed to you claiming that there's a difference (that we should care about).
-
I'm sorry, but are you trying to make a point? If so, then please do so.
My point is your sources show that the difference is 8 minutes. That is not a large difference, as opposed to you claiming that there's a difference (that we should care about).
Then you completely missed my point.
My point is not that daylight at the equator is 12 hours, give or take 8 minutes. My point is that daylight at the equator is 12 hours (give or take 8 minutes) EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
-
Trig, I understand your argument, but you're wrong.
No, I'm not trolling. Light is my trade. Has been since the Johnson administration.
But don't feel bad, a lot of people in the business get it wrong, too. Once they learn the inverse square rule they think it applies to everything, everywhere because no one ever tells them different. It does not. It applies only to a sphere radiating into 360 degrees. (same with sound) If it applied to projectors, flashlights, spotlights, lighthouses and lasers, they would be of little use. The laser is best example of this.
Stop and think about it, don't just fall back on what you "think" you know.
EDIT: Typos
-
I own a flashlight. It does not illuminate my entire house at once. I have often worked as a spotlight operator. The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.
And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens. This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.
Every now and then somebody shows such a mind-boggling ignorance of the most basic physics that I must ask myself if they live in the same planet as I do. Apparently A.R. Wallace does not (or is just trolling).
The inverse square law applies always! Even if you use a laser to produce the light and focus the beam with the best care, light will stray from the straight line because light is a wave! If you do not want your light dissipating as the inverse square law predicts, you have to send it through an optical fiber.
If you really have been a spotlight operator in a theater you will know that everyone in the auditorium can see the spotlights from every place in the theater unless there is a curtain or something else between the spotlight and the observer. And you will see that when several spotlights are in use the whole audience is lightly illuminated.
If you want a perfect stream of something that will not disperse, try water.
Actually, A.R. Wallace is right. The inverse square law applies to situations where the energy density of light weakens as it travels further. A spotlight would have the same energy density at every point on along the beam.
But of course, spotlights aren't perfect. As you mentioned, there is a little bit of light dispersion within the spotlight itself and dust and whatnot absorbs some of the light along its journey - but these factors don't account for an inverse square law relationship as you would expect from a spherical radiating source.
-
Indeed.
We are getting way O.T. here, but that's the facts. Inverse square does not apply to a light that been focused. I can cite some real world examples and show you the math, if you want. Or you can just look it up - it's mentioned a lot.
-
Indeed.
We are getting way O.T. here, but that's the facts. Inverse square does not apply to a light that been focused. I can cite some real world examples and show you the math, if you want. Or you can just look it up - it's mentioned a lot.
Here's a question - can you focus light without any sort of artificial or mechanical means? Removing of lenses and blinders to the light source - what would it's impact be?
Berny
OT ?
-
Here's a question - can you focus light without any sort of artificial or mechanical means? Removing of lenses and blinders to the light source - what would it's impact be?
Berny
OT ?
If there is, I haven't heard of it. Naturally, photons are emitted in random directions when the energized electrons in an atom fall to a lower state of energy. This random direction, coupled with an unfathomable amount of photons means that a source of light will radiate in all directions equally. If you wanted a spotlight effect with the sun, you would need something to either reflect the photons or absorb them.
Both seem equally unlikely however because we can't observe any reflective objects or see how it's possible that some matter could be absorbing the light since the sun is already a black body.
-
Then you completely missed my point.
My point is not that daylight at the equator is 12 hours, give or take 8 minutes. My point is that daylight at the equator is 12 hours (give or take 8 minutes) EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
So you were proving Wallace right? Okay.
-
Here's a question - can you focus light without any sort of artificial or mechanical means? Removing of lenses and blinders to the light source - what would it's impact be?
Berny
OT ?
Every now and then there appears a humongous error in physics concepts in this forum, and this one is among the worst. There are no means, mechanical, optical, electromagnetic or otherwise to focus a beam of light to the point where the light travels in only one direction. This is one of the most basic characteristics of a wave. If you want a detailed description of the phenomenon you can look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk)
You can focus a theater spotlight to a place of the same size of the diameter of the spotlight, getting a beam of light that is mostly uni-directional, but only for the small distances of a theater. And not even in a small theater can you get a totally uni-directional beam of light. If you could, you would not see the spotlight unless you step into the beam of light.
And I am not even talking about dust particles and other impurities in the air. Even in total vacuum you cannot have a perfectly uni-directional beam of light.
There is also no way whatsoever to avoid the "inverse square law". The light will come out of the light source covering an angle of at least arcsin(1.22 * wavelength / lens_diameter) and therefore will cover about four times the area when the distance to the source is doubled.
People in this forum are accustomed to making physical theories as they go, and in this case at least two forum members slept all the way through basic optics in freshman college. After so much sleeping in class you should have the decency to not fill your ignorance with made up physics theories.
-
Actually, A.R. Wallace is right. The inverse square law applies to situations where the energy density of light weakens as it travels further. A spotlight would have the same energy density at every point on along the beam.
But of course, spotlights aren't perfect. As you mentioned, there is a little bit of light dispersion within the spotlight itself and dust and whatnot absorbs some of the light along its journey - but these factors don't account for an inverse square law relationship as you would expect from a spherical radiating source.
Please, Puttah, you know more physics than this. Read my previous post.
The inverse square law applies to all cases in which light covers more area as it travels further away from the source, and that is all the cases where light travels in vacuum, air or another homogeneous substance.
There may be cases in which light has other distributions, but only at short distances from the source. For example, if you focus light on one point it will have a maximum density at one point, but at long distances it will follow the inverse square law, because light is a wave.
-
may be cases in which light has other distributions, but only at short distances from the source. For example, if you focus light on one point it will have a maximum density at one point, but at long distances it will follow the inverse square law, because light is a wave.
Yes, it will follow the law at long distances. If we consider a perfect laser (this is how I pictured the spotlight to be since I think the others were neglecting the slight divergence angle) then I don't believe it happens to follow the inverse square law for distance as short as within a theater.
Sadly it wouldn't be simple to conduct an experiment on this. The spotlight can hardly be approximated into a point source.
-
The inverse square law applies to all cases in which light covers more area as it travels further away from the source, and that is all the cases where light travels in vacuum, air or another homogeneous substance because light is a wave.
This is just so WRONG. I asked if you wanted examples and the math. You did not answer. Perhaps you don't want to know the answer?
-
Here's a question - can you focus light without any sort of artificial or mechanical means? Removing of lenses and blinders to the light source - what would it's impact be?
Well I can't. But I can't create the sun, either. At least not on that scale. Don't forget reflectors - such as found on search lights. Very tight beam there with a very shallow barrel and no lens.
-
The inverse square law applies to all cases in which light covers more area as it travels further away from the source, and that is all the cases where light travels in vacuum, air or another homogeneous substance because light is a wave.
This is just so WRONG. I asked if you wanted examples and the math. You did not answer. Perhaps you don't want to know the answer?
Show me the maths, and show me how you are going to avoid the diffraction patterns of light.
Please tell me what part of this scenario is wrong: The Sun is less than 50000 km above us and illuminating areas of Earth at least 40000 km wide, at least some of the time. And the Sun is less than, say, 500 km wide. Therefore, in FE's only well defined model, the Sun is far and away different from an uni-directional source of light, and therefore the inverse square law applies, even in FE's Sun.
-
If we take the simple case where the top half (the part we can't see) of the sun's rays are being reflected towards the Earth, then this means the power of the light reaching us doubles, but it's still proportional to the inverse square law. I thought we were talking about spotlights though?
-
I'll give you an example with a very tight beam - a laser.
Suppose you have a very bright laser with a beam diameter of 3mm. You measure the radiated power at 1m and find it is 1W. Now you shine that laser at a target 8Km away (5 miles) and the spot on the target is 3m across. Not the tightest laser beam, but OK.
The beam now covers a surface area 1,000,000 times larger than it did at 1m. Area = πr2 The total energy is the same (minus air absorption) just spread out over a much larger area. If you took your power meter with a 3mm aperture (same as the beam's original diameter) you'd measure 1 microwatt of power. Got it? The beam now covers 1 million times more surface area so at any given point it is 1 million time less powerful.
Now that we know that - calculate the light power at your target using the inverse square law from 1m to 8000m. Tell me if they are close to the same.
-
Then you completely missed my point.
My point is not that daylight at the equator is 12 hours, give or take 8 minutes. My point is that daylight at the equator is 12 hours (give or take 8 minutes) EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR.
So you were proving Wallace right? Okay.
No. I was pointing out that Wallace's animation showed significantly more or less than 12 hours of daylight at the equator during the solstices. Even during the equinox, the curved edge of the oval should have been straight in order to provide an accurate representation of the daylight pattern.
-
Even during the equinox, the curved edge of the oval should have been straight in order to provide an accurate representation of the daylight pattern.
It would IF the map used in my animation is accurate. I doubt it is. All these FE maps, pretty as they are, are based on a RE model then projected on a disc. The real FE should be somewhat different to correspond to observed sunrise/sunset times, distances and other phenomena.
-
I'll give you an example with a very tight beam - a laser.
Suppose you have a very bright laser with a beam diameter of 3mm. You measure the radiated power at 1m and find it is 1W. Now you shine that laser at a target 8Km away (5 miles) and the spot on the target is 3m across. Not the tightest laser beam, but OK.
The beam now covers a surface area 1,000,000 times larger than it did at 1m. Area = πr2 The total energy is the same (minus air absorption) just spread out over a much larger area. If you took your power meter with a 3mm aperture (same as the beam's original diameter) you'd measure 1 microwatt of power. Got it? The beam now covers 1 million times more surface area so at any given point it is 1 million time less powerful.
Now that we know that - calculate the light power at your target using the inverse square law from 1m to 8000m. Tell me if they are close to the same.
Now I am starting to worry. Maybe you are not trolling, Maybe you are positively, honestly unaware of the difference between conservation of energy and inverse square law!
What you are saying, that the same watt of power is there when you look at it 8 km away, is the principle of conservation of energy! What you are saying that does not apply to spotlights is the inverse square law! The inverse square law is exactly what you described in your explanation. At a certain distance the energy density will be a million times lower and the area covered will be a million times larger than close to the source.
If you want to apply your inverse square law again, at 16 km the energy density will be a quarter of the energy density at 8 km, and the area covered will be quadrupled. You are giving the textbook example of inverse square law and saying it does not apply. How much lower can you fall?
PS. I do not know what power meter you are using for your thought experiment, but it is definitely something you pulled out of your ... lets say "imagination". The real meter you would have is a light meter, which indirectly measures light density (if you know how to use it), not power.
-
If we take the simple case where the top half (the part we can't see) of the sun's rays are being reflected towards the Earth, then this means the power of the light reaching us doubles, but it's still proportional to the inverse square law. I thought we were talking about spotlights though?
It is terribly complicated to understand the ideas of FE'ers in part because they do not take the time to make a diagram of their world view.
I can only say that, yes, whatever they do with the Sun's light, either using the light from the "top" of the Sun or not, the inverse square law will apply because it is a direct consequence of the principle of conservation of energy.
I think we are really talking about magical spotlights, because any real kind will never, ever, illuminate the Earth correctly, assuming any Earth model from this forum. You will always have to add mirrors in the sky, or weird shades and anti-moons or whatever fancies them at the moment.
-
OK, here is a link to the Flash animation. Sorry I couldn't embed it here. It works pretty well, give it a whirl. See what mistakes you can find.
http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm (http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm)
So much work, such a terrible result.
Lets start with the best part: The northern hemisphere is very wrong, but not totally, definitely, absurdly wrong. We can say it is a good try, even though it does not explain the 24 hour daylight and 24 hour nighttime some days per year, north of the Arctic Circle.
But now lets look at the Southern hemisphere. In Antarctica you also have continuous daylight for months at a time, but this "model" does not even explain days longer than 12 hours in the southern hemisphere. Ask any Argentinian or Chilean and they will laugh you out of the room with this "model".
I was, in fact, visiting Punta Arenas, at the southernmost part of Chile, some years ago and daytime extended from before 4 am to past 9 pm. Your diagram does not even show how a 12 hour daytime would be possible in Punta Arenas.
-
I was, in fact, visiting Punta Arenas, at the southernmost part of Chile, some years ago and daytime extended from before 4 am to past 9 pm. Your diagram does not even show how a 12 hour daytime would be possible in Punta Arenas.
I still find it funny how many of us have been to Punta Arenas. A tourist town it was not.
It would IF the map used in my animation is accurate. I doubt it is. All these FE maps, pretty as they are, are based on a RE model then projected on a disc. The real FE should be somewhat different to correspond to observed sunrise/sunset times, distances and other phenomena.
Wouldn't that be an easy start to making an FE map? All the major population centers have accurate sunrise/sunset/noon times so finding longitudinal distances should be easy enough. Next is north-south distances that might be trickier.
All that info is pretty much available on the net.
Berny
Lock is fixed
-
Now I am starting to worry. Maybe you are not trolling, Maybe you are positively, honestly unaware of the difference between conservation of energy and inverse square law!
Sigh..... I hand it to you on a silver platter and just ask you to do the inverse square part - and you don't! What more can I do? Is the light at 8000 meters 1/1000000 of the light at 1m according to the inverse square law? I'll wait for the answer.
As for the animation, I agree and have even stated as much, if you care to read my posts. It was an attempt to to see how it might work. It works well for north of the equator, poorly for the south. I've already stated that. ::)
Go actually DO something - then come talk to me.
-
Now I am starting to worry. Maybe you are not trolling, Maybe you are positively, honestly unaware of the difference between conservation of energy and inverse square law!
Sigh..... I hand it to you on a silver platter and just ask you to do the inverse square part - and you don't! What more can I do? Is the light at 8000 meters 1/1000000 of the light at 1m according to the inverse square law? I'll wait for the answer.
As for the animation, I agree and have even stated as much, if you care to read my posts. It was an attempt to to see how it might work. It works well for north of the equator, poorly for the south. I've already stated that. ::)
Go actually DO something - then come talk to me.
Get your terms straight so that we can even have a conversation:
Is the light density at 8000 meters 1/1000000 of the light density at 1 meter? YES (assuming the circumstances you describe).
Is the light's total power flux at 8000 meters 1/1000000 of the light's total power flux at 1 meter? NO.
Talking about "the light" instead of one specific, measurable parameter of it is just changing a physics problem into a cheap word game.
What you are handing on a silver platter is your right not to be called stupid or ignorant. But after working with light since the Johnson administration and not being able to talk coherently about luminous flux (the total production of light by a source, measured in lumens) and illuminance (the density of light traveling through a given area, measured in lux), we can only wonder why you still do not grasp their meanings.