The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Spanner on September 12, 2012, 05:48:43 AM
-
Companies seem to be giving flights to low-earth orbit for the right amount of money. It's fairly expensive right now, but advances are being made every day.
When it gets affordable, will you fly out into space to look at the round Earth, or will that be faked too?
-
I thought this was another spanner at first.
Anyway, if and when that sort of space travel becomes affordable, it may well be enough to change my opinion. I'm not so sure that a low-earth orbit would do the trick anyway.
-
I can't wait to be able to go up high enough to see for myself what shape it is! But until that day I need to believe what my eyes tell me.
-
If it looks anything like the current pictures that are apparently fake, I think it would be plenty apparent:
http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Tubesat.jpg (http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/Tubesat.jpg)
http://turbula.net/2003-fall/images/tech_lowearthorbit.jpg (http://turbula.net/2003-fall/images/tech_lowearthorbit.jpg)
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
-
Tom will have an explanation for what everyone sees. If people go to the moon commercially, Tom will explain what really happened. Tom has all the answers and needs no data.
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
I've seen that answer so many times, I almost feel like you have it on the copy-clipboard permanently so you can just slap it down where ever and whenever you feel like.
I thought this was another spanner at first.
Anyway, if and when that sort of space travel becomes affordable, it may well be enough to change my opinion. I'm not so sure that a low-earth orbit would do the trick anyway.
Low earth orbit (LEO) is still pretty far up there. If you took a full orbit, I think you'd be quite amazed at what you saw, regardless of what you think the shape of the earth is, or whether your opinion changed or not. I hear sunrise in space is absolutely breathtaking.
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
There's still the shape of the continents that has to be taken into account. Also, you could just cross reference images of the Earth from multiple different areas from low earth orbit. The shape of the continents will make it apparent whether or not the Earth is a disc or sphere.
-
This thread has just been Tom Bishop'ed!
As one glides across the planet in a majestic orbit, one would see the true round earth. All hail the penguins!
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
Indeed.
So what happens if you can't see the whole circle of light?
Or you can't see the lights of a city?
I mean, if you go up where you can see the edge of the circle of light, shouldn't you be able to see every part of the world that's in daylight? That IS what the edge means right?
-
Just do this simple test, go to a beach, wait until the sun is setting, lower your body as much as possible and stare into the water horizon, then when the last part of the sun gets away quickly stand up, you will see the sun again, proving the earth curvature.
Edit: Here's the PDF explaining that: http://www.darylscience.com/downloads/DblSunset.pdf (http://www.darylscience.com/downloads/DblSunset.pdf)
-
I have seen this first hand about fifteen years ago on a connection flight from Orlando, CA to San Jose. I watched the sun set while we were on the ground, and then watched it rise and set again after we departed.
This is simply a perspective effect. The higher the observer, the farther the horizon recedes.
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
There's still the shape of the continents that has to be taken into account. Also, you could just cross reference images of the Earth from multiple different areas from low earth orbit. The shape of the continents will make it apparent whether or not the Earth is a disc or sphere.
You can't see continents as a whole at the edge of the atmosphere. This is what the earth looks like at such an altitude:
The $150 Edge-of-Space Camera: MIT Students Beat NASA On Beer-Money Budget (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/)
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gadgetlab/2009/09/thumb-660x495.jpg)
The slight curvature results from the fact that we are looking down on a circle. When amateurs send balloons to near-space or space tourists take a plane trip to near-space this is what they will see. NASA's images from Low Earth Orbit which show more curvature to the earth are false. NASA has doctored high altitude image to make the craft seem higher than it is.
Indeed, NASA isn't even very good at their doctoring. If the earth were a near perfect sphere as alleged then viewing it from any angle should produce an arc of a circle. However, many NASA photographs show an inconsistent ellipse (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Earth_is_an_Egg) for the earth's curvature.
-
all pictures from space look curved because the lit portion of the earth would look like a circle of light.
this is because the sun is spherical and not a spot light.
with Zetetics finally given the oppertunity to go into space the truth will finally be revealed.
I just wish I had the 20 million to go.
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
So what happens if you can't see the whole circle of light?
You would assume that night is approaching and think nothing of it.
Or you can't see the lights of a city?
You won't see the lights of the city for the same reason you don't see the stars. The light reflected off of the earth is intense and washes out lesser light sources.
I mean, if you go up where you can see the edge of the circle of light, shouldn't you be able to see every part of the world that's in daylight? That IS what the edge means right?
Look at the above MIT picture from near-space. At the edge of the atmosphere the view of the distance is hazy with the thickness of the atmosphere. If you are saying that you should be able make out individual continents tens of thousands of miles away which have been shrunken into the horizon by perspective, then you are mistaken. At the edge of the atmosphere you are still looking across tens of thousands of miles when you look horizontally across the earth, and therefore things will be quite small and hard to make out.
-
These debates about the edge of space and "circle of light" are getting tedious. They're rather repetitive. Do you have anything new Tom, anything more convincing than anything you and garygreen have tried to slash each other over repeatedly?
-
These debates about the edge of space and "circle of light" are getting tedious.
I don't find truth tedious.
-
It's a perfect arc of a circle, Tom. Check your prescription.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/J-factory/NotAnEgg2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/J-factory/NotAnEgg.jpg)
Test it out for yourself.
I used SketchUp (http://www.sketchup.com)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/J-factory/NotAnEgg3.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/J-factory/NotAnEgg4.jpg)
Tom, read The Sleepwalkers (http://www.amazon.com/The-Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Universe/dp/0140192468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347584405&sr=8-1&keywords=the+sleepwalkers)
-
The earth is flat. At the edge of the atmosphere one is looking down at a circle of light, and will thus see some slight curvature to the horizon.
So what happens if you can't see the whole circle of light?
You would assume that night is approaching and think nothing of it.
Then I'd expect to see a much larger circle and signs of the sunset line. You know like a gradual fade to red or orange.
Or you can't see the lights of a city?
You won't see the lights of the city for the same reason you don't see the stars. The light reflected off of the earth is intense and washes out lesser light sources.
Even from the dark part? Are you saying that one bright area is able to cancel out light from a dark area?
I mean, if you go up where you can see the edge of the circle of light, shouldn't you be able to see every part of the world that's in daylight? That IS what the edge means right?
Look at the above MIT picture from near-space. At the edge of the atmosphere the view of the distance is hazy with the thickness of the atmosphere. If you are saying that you should be able make out individual continents tens of thousands of miles away which have been shrunken into the horizon by perspective, then you are mistaken. At the edge of the atmosphere you are still looking across tens of thousands of miles when you look horizontally across the earth, and therefore things will be quite small and hard to make out.
5,000 miles away actually. And yes I am.
The circumfrance of the earth is less than 25,000 miles. If half of it is lit at all times then only about 12,500 miles are lit. If the sun is the center of that circle of light then the sun's rays beam out with a radius of 6,250 miles.
Also, if you claim that the atmosphere is able to block out visible light reflecting off the surface from only a few thousand miles, then how can you see the circle of light's edge? Wouldn't the atmosphere block that as well?
-
These debates about the edge of space and "circle of light" are getting tedious.
I don't find truth tedious.
I find hearing the same fallacious reasoning tedious. Garygreen may or may not have gotten banned for disagreeing with you, but I applaud his continuous effort. I wont do it. There's no point.
-
It's a perfect arc of a circle, Tom. Check your prescription.
You skipped an image on the Wiki page which is nowhere close to an arc of a circle. I will need to review your work this weekend to ensure the image has not been stretched or modified in any way. If your images are accurate I will update the Wiki.
Then I'd expect to see a much larger circle and signs of the sunset line. You know like a gradual fade to red or orange.
In the MIT image of near-space I would say that you don't see oranges in the distance because the bright blue atmosphere you're looking through overpowers the orange in the distance. The daylight portion is at a much higher contrast than the sunset portion, and may be washing it out just as it washes out the stars in the sky.
You won't see the lights of the city for the same reason you don't see the stars. The light reflected off of the earth is intense and washes out lesser light sources.
Even from the dark part? Are you saying that one bright area is able to cancel out light from a dark area?
Yes. The people who flew on the Concord at near-space all agree that the stars cannot be seen at such heights. The brightness of the earth prevents the stars from being seen.
5,000 miles away actually. And yes I am.
The circumfrance of the earth is less than 25,000 miles. If half of it is lit at all times then only about 12,500 miles are lit. If the sun is the center of that circle of light then the sun's rays beam out with a radius of 6,250 miles.
Also, if you claim that the atmosphere is able to block out visible light reflecting off the surface from only a few thousand miles, then how can you see the circle of light's edge? Wouldn't the atmosphere block that as well?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Kindly rephrase.
-
These debates about the edge of space and "circle of light" are getting tedious.
I don't find truth tedious.
I find hearing the same fallacious reasoning tedious. Garygreen may or may not have gotten banned for disagreeing with you, but I applaud his continuous effort. I wont do it. There's no point.
No one gets banned for disagreeing with us.
If you find the reasoning tedious perhaps you should combat it out in the open like Lorddave rather than whining about it in your corner.
-
You won't see the lights of the city for the same reason you don't see the stars. The light reflected off of the earth is intense and washes out lesser light sources.
Even from the dark part? Are you saying that one bright area is able to cancel out light from a dark area?
Yes. The people who flew on the Concord at near-space all agree that the stars cannot be seen at such heights. The brightness of the earth prevents the stars from being seen.
I would hardly call 60,000 feet the edge of space. That's less than 4 miles higher than a standard airliner's cruising altitude. The stars cannot be seen during the day. At night, you can see them. Seeing it from space would be the same as seeing it from the surface. The only difference is that they wont twinkle because the atmosphere isn't in the way.
-
I would hardly call 60,000 feet the edge of space. That's less than 4 miles higher than a standard airliner's cruising altitude.
On Wikipedia we read that 90% of the atmosphere by mass is below an altitude of 16 km (http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/e/Earth%2527s_atmosphere.htm) (53493 feet).
-
You won't see the lights of the city for the same reason you don't see the stars. The light reflected off of the earth is intense and washes out lesser light sources.
Even from the dark part? Are you saying that one bright area is able to cancel out light from a dark area?
Yes. The people who flew on the Concord at near-space all agree that the stars cannot be seen at such heights. The brightness of the earth prevents the stars from being seen.
I would hardly call 60,000 feet the edge of space. That's less than 4 miles higher than a standard airliner's cruising altitude.
On Wikipedia we read that 90% of the atmosphere by mass is below an altitude of 16 km (http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/e/Earth%2527s_atmosphere.htm) (53493 feet).
That doesn't mean they're at the edge of space 8,000 feet higher. The space station, which orbits at ~450km suffers from atmospheric drag. Not very much, but some. No one really knows where exactly it ends. The edge of space is considered to be somewhere around 100-200,000 feet. In orbital manned craft, the atmosphere is negligible for short term trips at over 120km, which is ~396,000 feet. So 60,000 feet is not the edge of space.
-
That doesn't mean they're at the edge of space 8,000 feet higher. The space station, which orbits at ~450km suffers from atmospheric drag. Not very much, but some. No one really knows where exactly it ends. The edge of space is considered to be somewhere around 100-200,000 feet. In orbital manned craft, the atmosphere is negligible for short term trips at over 120km, which is ~396,000 feet. So 60,000 feet is not the edge of space.
Since NASA is a fraud, why should we care what they say about space?
I say that since a craft at 60,000 feet is above the vast majority of the atmosphere it is therefore near space.
-
That doesn't mean they're at the edge of space 8,000 feet higher. The space station, which orbits at ~450km suffers from atmospheric drag. Not very much, but some. No one really knows where exactly it ends. The edge of space is considered to be somewhere around 100-200,000 feet. In orbital manned craft, the atmosphere is negligible for short term trips at over 120km, which is ~396,000 feet. So 60,000 feet is not the edge of space.
Since NASA is a fraud, why should we care what they say about space?
I say that since a craft at 60,000 feet is above the vast majority of the atmosphere it is therefore near space.
Saying something does not make it true Tom. Craft have flown higher and not been in space, and their wings have also been able to produce lift at higher altitudes. If something flies at 100,000 feet and is not in space, how exactly is 60,000 feet (60% as high) the edge of space?
-
That doesn't mean they're at the edge of space 8,000 feet higher. The space station, which orbits at ~450km suffers from atmospheric drag. Not very much, but some. No one really knows where exactly it ends. The edge of space is considered to be somewhere around 100-200,000 feet. In orbital manned craft, the atmosphere is negligible for short term trips at over 120km, which is ~396,000 feet. So 60,000 feet is not the edge of space.
Since NASA is a fraud, why should we care what they say about space?
I say that since a craft at 60,000 feet is above the vast majority of the atmosphere it is therefore near space.
Saying something does not make it true Tom. Craft have flown higher and not been in space, and their wings have also been able to produce lift at higher altitudes. If something flies at 100,000 feet and is not in space, how exactly is 60,000 feet (60% as high) the edge of space?
Space is defined as a lack of atmospheric density. 60,000 feet is near space because it is above 90% of the atmosphere.
The fact the remaining 10% stretches a distance before petering out to nothingness is meaningless. That last 10% of atmosphere is near-space, regardless of the space it occupies, since 90% of the atmosphere is below it.
-
Some people (including the FAI in some of their publications) also use the expression "edge of space" to refer to a region below the conventional 100 km boundary to space, which is often meant to include substantially lower regions as well. Thus, certain balloon or airplane flights might be described as "reaching the edge of space". In such statements, "reaching the edge of space" merely refers to going higher than average aeronautical vehicles commonly would
Average aeronautical vehicles I assume include military aircraft around the world, many of which can reach 30-60,000 feet. That would make them average, as there are a lot of them. The concorde therefore falls in to this category.
EDIT: You say NASA is a fraud, yet you take figures used by NASA every single time they plan and perform missions. So please, explain to me again how NASA is wrong and their figures are wrong and how you use their figures to prove them wrong.
-
Some people (including the FAI in some of their publications) also use the expression "edge of space" to refer to a region below the conventional 100 km boundary to space, which is often meant to include substantially lower regions as well. Thus, certain balloon or airplane flights might be described as "reaching the edge of space". In such statements, "reaching the edge of space" merely refers to going higher than average aeronautical vehicles commonly would
Average aeronautical vehicles I assume include military aircraft around the world, many of which can reach 30-60,000 feet. That would make them average, as there are a lot of them. The concorde therefore falls in to this category.
Your assertion does not meet the text quoted. The concorde wasn't an average plane, and wasn't flying at average flight altitudes.
EDIT: You say NASA is a fraud, yet you take figures used by NASA every single time they plan and perform missions. So please, explain to me again how NASA is wrong and their figures are wrong and how you use their figures to prove them wrong.
What figures do I use from NASA?
-
Space is defined as a lack of atmospheric density. 60,000 feet is near space because it is above 90% of the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line)
The Kármán line lies at an altitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude) of 100 kilometres (62 mi) above the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth)'s sea level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level), and is commonly used to define the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere) and outer space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space).[2]
-
Markjo,
Since NASA is a fraud, why should we care what they say about space?
Some people (including the FAI in some of their publications) also use the expression "edge of space" to refer to a region below the conventional 100 km boundary to space, which is often meant to include substantially lower regions as well.
-
I would hardly call 60,000 feet the edge of space. That's less than 4 miles higher than a standard airliner's cruising altitude.
On Wikipedia we read that 90% of the atmosphere by mass is below an altitude of 16 km (http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/e/Earth%2527s_atmosphere.htm) (53493 feet).
If the atmosphere is what blocks the Sun and causes night, and you are above 90% of the atmosphere at 60,000 feet wouldn't you be able to see the Sun 24 hours a day from that altitude? What percentage of atmospheric density are you in when you are on a commercial flight? Commercial flights should be able to see the Sun hours past where it has become dark on the ground right?
-
If the atmosphere is what blocks the Sun and causes night, and you are above 90% of the atmosphere at 60,000 feet wouldn't you be able to see the Sun 24 hours a day from that altitude?
Looking through 10% of atmosphere for tens of thousands of miles is still significant.
-
If the atmosphere is what blocks the Sun and causes night, and you are above 90% of the atmosphere at 60,000 feet wouldn't you be able to see the Sun 24 hours a day from that altitude?
Looking through 10% of atmosphere for tens of thousands of miles is still significant.
The Sun is 3000 miles high, when it's 10,000 miles from the oberver there would be very little atmosphere between the observer and the Sun.
Even if you decide to argue that's not the case (due to some made up perspective phenomenon that only you know about), the fact still remains that the light from the Sun is only going through 10% as much atmosphere, and should therefore remain visible from vastly further away. The Sun's path as it rotates above the flat Earth would not take it far enough away to be going through as much atmosphere as it does at night from sea level. So there should be no Sunset or night at 60,000 feet.
-
Some people (including the FAI in some of their publications) also use the expression "edge of space" to refer to a region below the conventional 100 km boundary to space, which is often meant to include substantially lower regions as well. Thus, certain balloon or airplane flights might be described as "reaching the edge of space". In such statements, "reaching the edge of space" merely refers to going higher than average aeronautical vehicles commonly would
Average aeronautical vehicles I assume include military aircraft around the world, many of which can reach 30-60,000 feet. That would make them average, as there are a lot of them. The concorde therefore falls in to this category.
Your assertion does not meet the text quoted. The concorde wasn't an average plane, and wasn't flying at average flight altitudes.
The concorde did fly at average flight altitudes if we are to include all aircraft. It does meet the quoted text. See the bold section.
EDIT: You say NASA is a fraud, yet you take figures used by NASA every single time they plan and perform missions. So please, explain to me again how NASA is wrong and their figures are wrong and how you use their figures to prove them wrong.
What figures do I use from NASA?
Their figures about atmospheric density and composition at different altitudes. Who do you think measured that Tom? Not some joe-shmoe in a hot air balloon. It was by heavily funded teams, some of them being affiliated with NASA.
If the atmosphere is what blocks the Sun and causes night, and you are above 90% of the atmosphere at 60,000 feet wouldn't you be able to see the Sun 24 hours a day from that altitude?
Looking through 10% of atmosphere for tens of thousands of miles is still significant.
So 10% is insignificant for when determining whether you are in space or not, but significant for viewing range?
The fact the remaining 10% stretches a distance before petering out to nothingness is meaningless. That last 10% of atmosphere is near-space, regardless of the space it occupies, since 90% of the atmosphere is below it.
See, that 10% is meaningless. You said so yourself. 10% of 1000 is 100, 100 stretched out over a distance leaves a lot of room between each 1 that makes up that 100. So 10% of atmosphere for tens of thousands of miles is rather meaningless.
-
I honestly skipped that one just because it was dark and I didn't have much time but now that I did do it you were right about that one, Tom!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/J-factory/ThatOneIsEggShaped1.jpg)
-
If the atmosphere is what blocks the Sun and causes night, and you are above 90% of the atmosphere at 60,000 feet wouldn't you be able to see the Sun 24 hours a day from that altitude?
Looking through 10% of atmosphere for tens of thousands of miles is still significant.
The Sun is 3000 miles high, when it's 10,000 miles from the oberver there would be very little atmosphere between the observer and the Sun.
Even if you decide to argue that's not the case (due to some made up perspective phenomenon that only you know about), the fact still remains that the light from the Sun is only going through 10% as much atmosphere, and should therefore remain visible from vastly further away. The Sun's path as it rotates above the flat Earth would not take it far enough away to be going through as much atmosphere as it does at night from sea level. So there should be no Sunset or night at 60,000 feet.
The atmosphere may be only 10% as dense, but it is still atmosphere which can build up over distance.
Cardboard may be significantly less dense than carbon fiber, but it's still significant enough to block out light.
Their figures about atmospheric density and composition at different altitudes. Who do you think measured that Tom? Not some joe-shmoe in a hot air balloon. It was by heavily funded teams, some of them being affiliated with NASA.
Various governments and scientific organizations have been studying the density of the atmosphere at various altitudes since the invention of the barometer. Organizations besides NASA have sent aircraft and balloons to high altitudes with barometers attached. Hence, I'm not "using NASA data."
So 10% is insignificant for when determining whether you are in space or not, but significant for viewing range?
See my cardboard/carbon fiber analogy above. Significance is a matter of context. 10% of a million dollars is significant on a personal level, but insignificant on a corporate or governmental level.
See, that 10% is meaningless. You said so yourself. 10% of 1000 is 100, 100 stretched out over a distance leaves a lot of room between each 1 that makes up that 100. So 10% of atmosphere for tens of thousands of miles is rather meaningless.
It's not meaningless. A craft at 60,000 feet is above most of the atmosphere, but the atmosphere at 60,000 feet can still build up and accumulate over tens of thousands of miles. This, however, does not contradict the fact that 60,000 feet is above the majority of the atmosphere and is therefore "near-space" in the context of being closer to a vacuum even if it's not "near space" in terms of proximity. This may be the source of the confusion on why some organizations classify "near space" at altitudes far lower than 100km.
-
The atmosphere may be only 10% as dense, but it is still atmosphere which can build up over distance.
Cardboard may be significantly less dense than carbon fiber, but it's still significant enough to block out light.
That analogy makes no sense. You are comparing two different materials, neither of which is atmosphere, or even comparable in properties. The atmosphere doesn't block all light, it actually lets most light throught. Your contention is that night happens because as the Sun gets further away it has more and more atmosphere to go through.
Ok, but since the atmosphere at 60,000 feet is 90% less dense, light should be able to travel much, much further through it before finally being blocked/scattered to the point where none of the light reaches an observer. Since the atmosphere has something like 10 times less density, light should have no problem travelling at least two or three times further than it does for a sea level observer at sunset. This distance would be further than the Sun would ever get from an observer on a any of the flat Earth models I've ever seen on this site.
This means that the Sun should remain visible at all times to an observer at 60,000 feet. And depending on the actual light absorbing/scattering characteristics of the atmosphere, this may even be the case at 30,000 feet. It should certainly be visible from much greater distances in either circumstance.
I notice you keep throwing around the statement about the light having to travel through "thousands" of miles of atmosphere. This is simply never the case in the flat Earth model. If the atmosphere is only 60-70 miles thick or so, then based on the angle a 3,000 mile high Sun would have for an observer at Sunset, the light would never have to travel through more than a couple hundred miles of atmosphere. Since you claim that the atmosphere above 60,000 feet is basically insignificant (since 90% of its density is below that) than the Sun's light would only be traveling through 30-40 miles of the part of the atmosphere you find significant at Sunset.
As to the topic of this thread, you cannot claim that 60,000 feet is near space if you also claim that there is still so much atmosphere above you at 60,000 feet that it will completely block out the light of the Sun.
-
You won't see the lights of the city for the same reason you don't see the stars. The light reflected off of the earth is intense and washes out lesser light sources.
Even from the dark part? Are you saying that one bright area is able to cancel out light from a dark area?
Yes. The people who flew on the Concord at near-space all agree that the stars cannot be seen at such heights. The brightness of the earth prevents the stars from being seen.
Fair enough.
5,000 miles away actually. And yes I am.
The circumfrance of the earth is less than 25,000 miles. If half of it is lit at all times then only about 12,500 miles are lit. If the sun is the center of that circle of light then the sun's rays beam out with a radius of 6,250 miles.
Also, if you claim that the atmosphere is able to block out visible light reflecting off the surface from only a few thousand miles, then how can you see the circle of light's edge? Wouldn't the atmosphere block that as well?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Kindly rephrase.
Certainly.
I was merely correcting you. You seem to think that one would be viewing 10s of thousands of miles but that isn't the case. The circumference of the Earth is only about 24,000 miles. Since about half of it is lit by the sun that means that the circle covers only 12,000 miles circumference. Hardly 10s of thousands of miles. If anything it's 10,000 miles. Singular.
I hope you can avoid the numerical mistake in the future. :)
-
the sun is the fes' biggest downfall. at 60,000 ft light will as stated be visible 3 or 4 times the distance than it would on the surface. so yes it would be 24 hour daylight at 60,000 feet.
however the atmosphere is not responsible for day and night so the point is moot. night and day caused by atmosphere density has been demonstrated to be false.
-
The atmosphere may be only 10% as dense, but it is still atmosphere which can build up over distance.
Cardboard may be significantly less dense than carbon fiber, but it's still significant enough to block out light.
Cardboard? Cardboard and carbon fiber are not translucent. Try again Tom. You can't use an opaque object for an analogy of light permeating air.
Various governments and scientific organizations have been studying the density of the atmosphere at various altitudes since the invention of the barometer. Organizations besides NASA have sent aircraft and balloons to high altitudes with barometers attached. Hence, I'm not "using NASA data."
Scientific organizations? Scientists just guess and twiddle their thumbs all based on a round earth. I believe you've said things like this yourself. One must make zetetic observations to find the truth. I guess it's time you go get a weather balloon and make the measurements yourself.
See my cardboard/carbon fiber analogy above. Significance is a matter of context. 10% of a million dollars is significant on a personal level, but insignificant on a corporate or governmental level.
You have this bad habit of using analogies that do not match the situation. In this case, 10% is insignificant because it's stretched out of hundreds of kilometers after that 18.2 km altitude of the Concorde. Like you said, it's not uniformly dense. The initial 90% of the atmosphere is only 16 km high. The last 10% is ~400 km high after that by the figures you gave. That means there's very very little of it per volume.
It's not meaningless. A craft at 60,000 feet is above most of the atmosphere, but the atmosphere at 60,000 feet can still build up and accumulate over tens of thousands of miles. This, however, does not contradict the fact that 60,000 feet is above the majority of the atmosphere and is therefore "near-space" in the context of being closer to a vacuum even if it's not "near space" in terms of proximity. This may be the source of the confusion on why some organizations classify "near space" at altitudes far lower than 100km.
As I explained above, at 60,000 ft (~18 km) you are still over 400 km from a vacuum. You are nowhere near space, and certainly not on the edge of it. The near space altitudes far lower than 100 km were referring to something like 50-80 km. Not 18 km. Any of those scientists you were talking about would laugh you out of the room if you told them the Concorde was a near-space aircraft.
-
Cardboard? Cardboard and carbon fiber are not translucent. Try again Tom. You can't use an opaque object for an analogy of light permeating air.
The molecules which make up the air are not translucent. You are looking through the space between the molecules which make up the atmosphere.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/why-is-air-transparent.htm (http://people.howstuffworks.com/why-is-air-transparent.htm) --
"Air is a gas. Compared to a solid, air contains very few atoms and is very light. Think about a balloon filled with air compared to a balloon filled with sand. The air balloon is incredibly light compared to the sand balloon. That's because there are many more atoms in sand than in air.
Because air contains so few atoms, light waves run into very few of them when they shine through air. So the air looks transparent. If you put enough dust in the air, the particles of dust absorb the light and the air stops being transparent.
Or, if you make the air incredibly thick, the air absorbs a lot more light. For example, air at sea level is much thicker than air, say, at the top of Mt. Everest. The higher you get, the thinner the air gets. Thin air is much clearer than thick air, because there are less atoms and dust to block the light. When you look straight up at noon, you're looking through a couple of miles of thick air, then about 60 miles of thinner and thinner air, then the vacuum of space. When you look toward the horizon at sunset, you are looking through many miles of thick air at the surface of the Earth, which blocks much of the sun's light. That's why you can't look at the sun at high noon, but you can watch a sunset."
Scientific organizations? Scientists just guess and twiddle their thumbs all based on a round earth. I believe you've said things like this yourself. One must make zetetic observations to find the truth. I guess it's time you go get a weather balloon and make the measurements yourself.
That's not what Zeteticism means. The philosophy isn't "you have to see it to believe it". Read the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe for a proper description. It says nothing of that sort.
You have this bad habit of using analogies that do not match the situation. In this case, 10% is insignificant because it's stretched out of hundreds of kilometers after that 18.2 km altitude of the Concorde. Like you said, it's not uniformly dense. The initial 90% of the atmosphere is only 16 km high. The last 10% is ~400 km high after that by the figures you gave. That means there's very very little of it per volume.
Are you certain that's what the article means when it says 10% atmosphere?
As I explained above, at 60,000 ft (~18 km) you are still over 400 km from a vacuum. You are nowhere near space, and certainly not on the edge of it. The near space altitudes far lower than 100 km were referring to something like 50-80 km. Not 18 km. Any of those scientists you were talking about would laugh you out of the room if you told them the Concorde was a near-space aircraft.
And as I've said, 10% of atmosphere is near space because it is a state which is near-vacuum. It is not near space in terms of proximity.
-
And as I've said, 10% of atmosphere is near space because it is a state which is near-vacuum. It is not near space in terms of proximity.
Tom, atmospheric pressure at 60,000 feet is still around 1 psi.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
-
Cardboard? Cardboard and carbon fiber are not translucent. Try again Tom. You can't use an opaque object for an analogy of light permeating air.
The molecules which make up the air are not translucent. You are looking through the space between the molecules which make up the atmosphere.
The fact still remains that you can see through air, not cardboard or carbon fiber, rendering your analogy invalid
-
The higher you get, the thinner the air gets. Thin air is much clearer than thick air, because there are less atoms and dust to block the light.
Right from your post it says thin air is much clearer than thick air. If the air is what's blocking us from seeing the Sun, shouldn't we be able to see it vastly further away, and therefore all the time, when at an altitude where the air is 90% thinner? If the air is 90% less dense it should block 90% less light. If I'm only looking through 10% if the atmosphere I'm looking through at sea level, the Sun should be visible from 10 times further away.
And if the atmosphere is what causes the magnification effect of the Sun, would that effect be reduced as well? Would the Sun appear smaller as it receded if viewed from altitude?
-
And as I've said, 10% of atmosphere is near space because it is a state which is near-vacuum. It is not near space in terms of proximity.
Tom, atmospheric pressure at 60,000 feet is still around 1 psi.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
How does that compare to the psi on the ground?
The fact still remains that you can see through air, not cardboard or carbon fiber, rendering your analogy invalid
You can't see through air perfectly. Look at a distant hills and mountains sometime. They will usually be darkened and modified in color by the thickness of the atmosphere.
(http://100peaks.com/files/2011/01/10-The-view-down-Espinoza-Creek-Valley-with-Gaskill-Peak-Sycuan-Peak-Bell-Bluff-and-Viejas-Mountain-in-the-Distance-Among-Others.jpg)
(http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/rob-blakers-road-with-mountain-range-in-distance-glacier-national-park-montana-usa_i-G-20-2098-JQP2D00Z.jpg)
(http://specialtyfabricsreview.com/repository/1/1839/large_gs0609_f3_2.jpg)
The higher you get, the thinner the air gets. Thin air is much clearer than thick air, because there are less atoms and dust to block the light.
Right from your post it says thin air is much clearer than thick air. If the air is what's blocking us from seeing the Sun, shouldn't we be able to see it vastly further away, and therefore all the time, when at an altitude where the air is 90% thinner? If the air is 90% less dense it should block 90% less light. If I'm only looking through 10% if the atmosphere I'm looking through at sea level, the Sun should be visible from 10 times further away.
And if the atmosphere is what causes the magnification effect of the Sun, would that effect be reduced as well? Would the Sun appear smaller as it receded if viewed from altitude?
You are assuming that air is just barely blocking out the sun at sea level. As seen in the images above, air gets cloudy in only the distance from the observer to the mountain. For arguments sake lets say that the mountains are 9 miles away in those images. At 10% atmosphere we might need a distance of 90 miles to create the same amount of cloudyness.
This is a greater distance yes, but still insignificant when the light source is thousands of miles away horizontally. Perhaps the light lingers a bit longer, but the claim that the atmosphere would be illuminated at all times is still unjustified.
-
And as I've said, 10% of atmosphere is near space because it is a state which is near-vacuum. It is not near space in terms of proximity.
Tom, atmospheric pressure at 60,000 feet is still around 1 psi.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
How does that compare to the psi on the ground?
The better question would be; "how does that compare to the psi of a vacuum?"
-
And as I've said, 10% of atmosphere is near space because it is a state which is near-vacuum. It is not near space in terms of proximity.
Tom, atmospheric pressure at 60,000 feet is still around 1 psi.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html)
How does that compare to the psi on the ground?
The better question would be; "how does that compare to the psi of a vacuum?"
The standard in all of these discussions is sea level pressure. For a psi of 1 to have any meaning we would need to know what the psi at sea level is. From that we can say whether it is "near-space" or not.
-
You are assuming that air is just barely blocking out the sun at sea level. As seen in the images above, air gets cloudy in only the distance from the observer to the mountain. For arguments sake lets say that the mountains are 9 miles away in those images. At 10% atmosphere we might need a distance of 90 miles to create the same amount of cloudyness.
This is a greater distance yes, but still insignificant when the light source is thousands of miles away horizontally. Perhaps the light lingers a bit longer, but the claim that the atmosphere would be illuminated at all times is still unjustified.
so for arguments sake lets say the sun can been seen roughly 4780 miles away so at 10% atmosphere it can be seen roughly 47,800 miles.
in actual fact it can be seen further at sea level. this is just a rough calculation.
http://www.convertalot.com/distances_between_world_cities.html (http://www.convertalot.com/distances_between_world_cities.html)
a = 3100 hight
b = 3460 planar distance
c = 4780 view distance
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm)
also from the flat earth website;
Q: "What is the circumference and diameter of the Earth?"
Circumference: 125,829 km (78,186 miles) Diameter: 40,073 km (24,900 miles)
Justified.
-
so for arguments sake lets say the sun can been seen roughly 4780 miles away so at 10% atmosphere it can be seen roughly 47,800 miles.
Thank you for your justification. We are breaching new FE ground which I have not seen covered before.
My explanation in response to that is that at sea level atmosphere is so thick and foggy that it blocks out all light after perhaps 80 miles or so. This is demonstrated by the fact that the mountains in the images I posted have dimmed considerably, while being relatively close to the observer (maybe 6-10 miles). We can see that the atmosphere is not very transparent at all. It is actually rather thick.
The reason the sun is able to shine through the atmosphere despite its fog is because the sun is an intense light source and catches onto the atmosphere like foglights in fog. See the article The Magnification of the Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) in our encyclopedia. When we look at the sun at its setting we are not really looking at the sun, but its image upon the atmosphere.
See this headlight example from the article:
(http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/a/a7/Headlight_example.jpg)
The light from these incoming headlights are a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see. The light has caught on to the atmosphere and magnifies the line of cars, to a greater degree when the cars are at their furthest and to a lesser degree when they are close to us. Is appears as if the headlights are relatively the same size down the length of the highway, contradicting the shrinking of perspective. This is why the sun does not shrink to a tiny dot as it recedes from the observer.
Also notice that, while the headlights in the image are magnified, the red tail lights on the other lane are appropriately shrinking into the distance until they are invisible. They do not go through this effect. This is because the red tail lights are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere. A certain intensity is needed for the effect to occur.
It may be that at such heights of 60,000 feet that the atmosphere is to thin that the sun can't catch onto the atmosphere in this manner and the travel great distances at sea level, yet still thick enough that it disappears relatively closely at 10% atmosphere. A 10% atmosphere is still arguably thick by your own arguments, seeing as it can still generate lift for a plane.
-
so for arguments sake lets say the sun can been seen roughly 4780 miles away so at 10% atmosphere it can be seen roughly 47,800 miles.
Thank you for your justification. We are breaching new FE ground which I have not seen covered before.
My explanation in response to that is that at sea level atmosphere is so thick and foggy that it blocks out all light after 80 miles or so. This is demonstrated by the fact that the mountains in the images I posted have dimmed considerably, while being relatively close to the observer (8-10 miles perhaps). We can see that the atmosphere is not very transparent at all. It is actually rather thick.
The reason the sun is able to shine through the atmosphere despite its fog is because the sun is an intense light source and catches onto the atmosphere like foglights in fog. See the article The Magnification of the Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) in our encyclopedia. When we look at the sun at its setting we are not really looking at the sun, but its image upon the atmosphere.
See this headlight example from the article:
(http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/a/a7/Headlight_example.jpg)
The light from these incoming headlights are a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see. The light has caught on to the atmosphere and magnifies as the line of cars recede into the distance, appearing to be relatively the same size for as far as the eye can see. Also notice that, while the headlights are magnified, the tail lights are appropriately shrinking into the distance until they are invisible. This is because the red tail lights are not intense enough to catch onto the atmosphere.
It may be that at such heights of 60,000 feet it may be that the atmosphere is so thin that the sun can't catch onto the atmosphere in this manner, its light being diluted normally by a 10% atmosphere. A 10% atmosphere is still considerably thick by your own arguments, seeing as it can still generate lift for a plane.
If all light is blocked out after 80 miles, how come we can see the sun? Isn't that over 3,000 miles away?
Also, you should try an image of better quality when there isn't some form of fog or rain.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3433/3966018026_6ca5bc1acf_b.jpg)
This image shows tail lights much farther than your image.
Also:
Yes, light becomes diffuse in the atmosphere, not blocked so much. However, the sun is such a bright light source that we should be able to see it for a good 20,000 miles. Just look at the moon. How can we see it so well from so far when it's so much dimmer than the sun? Doesn't the moon, after all, follow the same path as the sun?
-
If all light is blocked out after 80 miles, how come we can see the sun? Isn't that over 3,000 miles away?
The article I posted, the Magnification of the Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) describes what is essentially the fog light effect. If a car 400 feet away from you is in fog it may be entirely invisible. It is not visible until it turns on its headlights. Despite the fact that the fog is blocking out the light of the car, the headlights are powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere. They are traveling further than they would if they were lesser light sources.
For example, the light of the car's hood behind the fog is not intense enough to permeate the fog and catch on and magnify. It is not seen at all. Only the car's headlights are intense enough to do that. If this were not the case, cars would be entirely invisible behind fog, resulting in countless deaths and tragedy on foggy days.
Also, you should try an image of better quality when there isn't some form of fog or rain.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3433/3966018026_6ca5bc1acf_b.jpg (http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3433/3966018026_6ca5bc1acf_b.jpg)
This image shows tail lights much farther than your image.
I don't know. I have a hard time seeing the tail lights in the distance in your image.
However, it looks like the oncoming headlights are the same size down the length of the lane. The little dots of the headlights in the distance look as big as the dots of headlights closer to us.
Here's a video of a freeway (http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-2696372-stock-footage-busy-los-angeles-freeway-at-night-circa-may.html). You will notice that the cars in the distance on the oncoming lane seem to have magnified headlights. The size is relatively constant as they approach us. The red tail lights of the cars in the lane going away from us do seem to shrink in the distance, however.
I will see if I can find better examples.
-
If all light is blocked out after 80 miles, how come we can see the sun? Isn't that over 3,000 miles away?
The article I posted, the Magnification of the Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset) describes what is essentially the fog light effect. If a car 400 feet away from you is in fog it may be entirely invisible. It is not visible until it turns on its headlights. Despite the fact that the fog is blocking out the light of the car, the headlights are powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere. They are traveling further than they would if they were lesser light sources (ie. the light from the hood of the car in fog).
Also, you should try an image of better quality when there isn't some form of fog or rain.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3433/3966018026_6ca5bc1acf_b.jpg (http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3433/3966018026_6ca5bc1acf_b.jpg)
This image shows tail lights much farther than your image.
I don't know. I have a hard time seeing the tail lights in the distance in your image.
However, it looks like the oncoming headlights are the same size down the length of the lane. The little dots of the headlights in the distance look as big as the dots of headlights closer to us.
I will see if I can find better examples.
Here's a video of a freeway (http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-2696372-stock-footage-busy-los-angeles-freeway-at-night-circa-may.html). You will notice that as the cars approach us the headlights don't seem to be growing. They are relatively constant. The red tail lights of the cars in the lane going away from us do seem to shrink, however.
Focus is a pretty awesome thing isn't it. It allows objects to be sharp or blurry based on a single point. And as we all know, a light that is blurry will appear larger. People with glasses see this when they remove said glasses.
So why is it that when the sun is at its farthest, it's at it's sharpest?
Curious.
-
Focus is a pretty awesome thing isn't it. It allows objects to be sharp or blurry based on a single point. And as we all know, a light that is blurry will appear larger. People with glasses see this when they remove said glasses.
So why is it that when the sun is at its farthest, it's at it's sharpest?
Curious.
I would say that blurriness is a matter of granularity of the surface medium. When a car is behind 400 feet of fog and turns on its headlights what you see is a blurry white spot on the atmosphere, as the fog is close and scattered.
Since the sun is thousands of miles away, it is projecting upon many more atoms and molecules of atmosphere, and can therefore create a more defined image.
-
i have seen you post this before tom. i have actually observed what you are saying with my own eyes and my own observations didnt match your theory.
this thread also demonstrated a big flaw in the atmospheric density theory;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518)
its actually one topic that im interested in as far as fet is concerned. i have looked into it.
there was some things i wanted to do while i was still enthusiastic about it and that was making a table for atmospheric densities and the distance you can see from different heights. that was back when i believed most 'believers' believed in fet and wasnt just trolling for shits and giggles.
if you are interested in doing some work on the topic though id happily help.
-
Focus is a pretty awesome thing isn't it. It allows objects to be sharp or blurry based on a single point. And as we all know, a light that is blurry will appear larger. People with glasses see this when they remove said glasses.
So why is it that when the sun is at its farthest, it's at it's sharpest?
Curious.
I would say that blurriness is a matter of granularity of the surface medium. When a car is behind 400 feet of fog and turns on its headlights what you see is a blurry white spot on the atmosphere, as the fog is close and scattered.
Since the sun is thousands of miles away, it is projecting upon many more atoms and molecules of atmosphere, and can therefore create a more defined image.
Incorrect. Fog is a cloud on the ground. The moisture in the cloud causes the light to be dispersed. That's why it looks blurry.
And that also fails to explain why the opposite is true: at Noon when the sun is closest its blurrier (or more amplified) than at dusk or dawn when it's much farther.
-
lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.
-
lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.
There is but it's in a gas form and not usually condensed on dust particles. Water vapor and liquid water affect light differently.
-
The recent transit of Venus has disproved the idea that the sun's size in the sky is maintained by glare as it circles away across the earth-plane.
-
lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.
Having a wrong answer make more sense doesn't make it any less wrong.
-
lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.
Having a wrong answer make more sense doesn't make it any less wrong.
indeed but im happy to support good ideas. im not lurking simply to try and shoot down fet. if a supporter says something of value i think the idea should be expanded. after all wouldnt it be better if the theory became tighter and then in time the faq was adjusted so it wasnt the joke it is today?
i think the point tom is making is perfectly valid if one did believe that the earth was round. the fact we dont support tom in his ideas is because we look at the other evidence and come to a different conclusion. however if stood alone toms theory stands true.
-
lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.
Having a wrong answer make more sense doesn't make it any less wrong.
indeed but im happy to support good ideas. im not lurking simply to try and shoot down fet. if a supporter says something of value i think the idea should be expanded. after all wouldnt it be better if the theory became tighter and then in time the faq was adjusted so it wasnt the joke it is today?
i think the point tom is making is perfectly valid if one did believe that the earth was round. the fact we dont support tom in his ideas is because we look at the other evidence and come to a different conclusion. however if stood alone toms theory stands true.
Tom not knowing the difference between transparent, translucent and opaque or the difference between water vapor and cloud droplets has nothing to do with RET vs FET.
-
i have seen you post this before tom. i have actually observed what you are saying with my own eyes and my own observations didnt match your theory.
this thread also demonstrated a big flaw in the atmospheric density theory;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518)
its actually one topic that im interested in as far as fet is concerned. i have looked into it.
I looked at that thread and it seems to be a different topic concerning perspective, not the thickness of the atmosphere.
Incorrect. Fog is a cloud on the ground. The moisture in the cloud causes the light to be dispersed. That's why it looks blurry.
I believe I said that blurryness is a matter of granularity of the surface medium. For example; if the density of the fog and the size of the droplets were shrunk by an order of magnitude, the fog light projection from the car would be much sharper.
And that also fails to explain why the opposite is true: at Noon when the sun is closest its blurrier (or more amplified) than at dusk or dawn when it's much farther.
When the sun is overhead at noon it is shining through less atmosphere than it does in the distance at sunset. When the sun is far away from the observer it shines on many more molecules and atoms of the atmosphere to reach the observer, and thus makes a sharper image.
-
actually tom its also relevant to this topic as it shows that atmospheric density (for use of a better word) is not behaving in the way you describe.
you claim that light is halted in its tracks and thats why the light doesnt reach you. well that thread shows that it is false.
"Tom not knowing the difference between transparent, translucent and opaque or the difference between water vapor and cloud droplets has nothing to do with RET vs FET."
are you saying that the air is transparent then? also there is no reference to clouds here. we are talking about atoms in general. because the sky is not empty.
thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.
-
are you saying that the air is transparent then?
Of course it is.
thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.
What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?
-
are you saying that the air is transparent then?
Of course it is.
thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.
What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?
you cant see forever though can you. even if the earth was flat. ALL mediums have a finite distance that you can see through.
transparency should be reclassified as its the thickness thats really relevant. i wonder if steel would be transparent if made thin enough, i would imagine it would, perhaps?
-
are you saying that the air is transparent then?
Of course it is.
thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.
What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?
you cant see forever though can you. even if the earth was flat. ALL mediums have a finite distance that you can see through.
transparency should be reclassified as its the thickness thats really relevant. i wonder if steel would be transparent if made thin enough, i would imagine it would, perhaps?
I think steel, even if only one molecule thick would still not be transparent as the molecules in steel are still fairly tightly packed, then again perhaps on an atomic level of magnification it could be. This is a rather intriquing idea
-
What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?
you cant see forever though can you. even if the earth was flat. ALL mediums have a finite distance that you can see through.
Since when is "transparent" an absolute term?
-
i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.
yeh pythagoras it is thought provoking isnt it. its something ive not thought about before.
so to summarise is the air transparent or translucent? also over what kind of distances? at best it can be described as both.
i would say that for arguments sake that toms theory of the atmosphere blocking sunlight is probable. but i think that a very foggy day would surly demonstrate this better and make the area around you much darker. a good way to prove it would be to calculate the density of a thick fog with heavy clouds during daylight and the density of the atmosphere at twilight on a perfectly clear day. is such an experiment possible? surely good estimates could be drummed up? i wouldnt have the foggiest idea how
-
i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.
Transparency means that the medium is clear enough where you can see objects through it. According to FET, as the sun appears to set, it is quite a few thousands of miles away from the observer. Seriously, how much more transparent can a medium get than that?
i would say that for arguments sake that toms theory of the atmosphere blocking sunlight is probable. but i think that a very foggy day would surly demonstrate this better and make the area around you much darker. a good way to prove it would be to calculate the density of a thick fog with heavy clouds during daylight and the density of the atmosphere at twilight on a perfectly clear day. is such an experiment possible? surely good estimates could be drummed up? i wouldnt have the foggiest idea how
Fog and clouds are translucent. They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them. Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.
-
Optical density.
-
i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.
Transparency means that the medium is clear enough where you can see objects through it. According to FET, as the sun appears to set, it is quite a few thousands of miles away from the observer. Seriously, how much more transparent can a medium get than that?
If you've been following my arguments, the atmosphere is not transparent for thousands of miles. It builds up like a fog after 80 miles or so. The only reason the sun is seen is because of the fog light effect. The light catches onto the atmosphere and magnifies.
Fog and clouds are translucent. They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them. Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.
That's the fog light effect.
-
i would say that for arguments sake that toms theory of the atmosphere blocking sunlight is probable. but i think that a very foggy day would surly demonstrate this better and make the area around you much darker. a good way to prove it would be to calculate the density of a thick fog with heavy clouds during daylight and the density of the atmosphere at twilight on a perfectly clear day. is such an experiment possible? surely good estimates could be drummed up? i wouldnt have the foggiest idea how
Fog and clouds are translucent. They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them. Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.
then the burden is on tom to demonstrate there there are more particles between the observer at twilight than there is on a cloudy, foggy day.
-
i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.
Transparency means that the medium is clear enough where you can see objects through it. According to FET, as the sun appears to set, it is quite a few thousands of miles away from the observer. Seriously, how much more transparent can a medium get than that?
If you've been following my arguments, the atmosphere is not transparent for thousands of miles. It builds up like a fog after 80 miles or so. The only reason the sun is seen is because of the fog light effect. The light catches onto the atmosphere and magnifies.
Fog and clouds are translucent. They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them. Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.
That's the fog light effect.
A translucent medium, such as fog, does not allow an object behind it to be seen distinctly. This is not what I experience when I look at the sun near the horizon on a clear day.
-
I think also that the recent transit of Venus proved that there is more than 300 miles distance between us and the Sun and that 7 billion people in this world are right.
But let's ignore the facts! We don't want to be sheeple!
-
The index of refraction for Air is only slightly above 1. (1.0003).
1 is a vacuum.
This means that air is only slightly denser (optically) than nothing. How far can one see light do you think?
-
Light is moving at 300,000km/s, a few air paticles isn't going to just stop it. It gets diffused, but it wont stop, light never stops. This is why, even hours after the sun sets, you can still see some light in the sky. If it just stopped because "air isn't transparent after 80 miles," then you've couldn't see this light.
If you've been following my arguments, the atmosphere is not transparent for thousands of miles. It builds up like a fog after 80 miles or so. The only reason the sun is seen is because of the fog light effect. The light catches onto the atmosphere and magnifies.
This statement contradicts itself, and we've had this discussion before. Something cannot diffuse and magnify light at the same time. If the atmosphere built up like a fog after 80 miles or so, then all you would see of any lights, including the sun, would be a hazy glare, especially when the sun was near the horizon. What exactly do you mean by "the light catches onto the atmosphere?"
-
The index of refraction for Air is only slightly above 1. (1.0003).
1 is a vacuum.
This means that air is only slightly denser (optically) than nothing. How far can one see light do you think?
80 miles at sea level. It really depends on conditions. The area around New York is so polluted that visibility is under 25 miles. Contrarily, people have reported making out the outlines of distant mountains 100 - 150 miles away from the top of Mt. Everest. But the thinness of the atmosphere is different up there.
I don't understand what you're getting act with the index of refraction. That's not being discussed.
This statement contradicts itself, and we've had this discussion before. Something cannot diffuse and magnify light at the same time. If the atmosphere built up like a fog after 80 miles or so, then all you would see of any lights, including the sun, would be a hazy glare, especially when the sun was near the horizon. What exactly do you mean by "the light catches onto the atmosphere?"
200 feet of fog may block out the light of a car behind it, but when that car turns on its headlights the light will permeate the fog. The light has caught onto the atmosphere and can travel further than normal light rays, in addition to magnifying its size. This is what the sun does, albeit on a larger scale.
The light is scattered in the fog example because the granularity of the surface medium is dispersed at such a close range. In the case of the sun, there are many more molecules to shine upon, as the sun is thousands of miles away. This results in a higher resolution and sharper image.
-
The index of refraction for Air is only slightly above 1. (1.0003).
1 is a vacuum.
This means that air is only slightly denser (optically) than nothing. How far can one see light do you think?
80 miles at sea level. It really depends on conditions. The area around New York is so polluted that visibility is under 25 miles. Contrarily, people have reported making out the outlines of distant mountains 100 - 150 miles away from the top of Mt. Everest. But the thinness of the atmosphere is different up there.
I don't understand what you're getting act with the index of refraction. That's not being discussed.
This statement contradicts itself, and we've had this discussion before. Something cannot diffuse and magnify light at the same time. If the atmosphere built up like a fog after 80 miles or so, then all you would see of any lights, including the sun, would be a hazy glare, especially when the sun was near the horizon. What exactly do you mean by "the light catches onto the atmosphere?"
200 feet of fog may block out the light of a car behind it, but when that car turns on its headlights the light will permeate the fog. The light has caught onto the atmosphere and can travel further than normal light rays, in addition to magnifying its size. This is what the sun does, albeit on a larger scale.
The light is scattered in the fog example because the granularity of the surface medium is dispersed at such a close range. In the case of the sun, there are many more molecules to shine upon, as the sun is thousands of miles away. This results in a higher resolution and sharper image.
The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it. That's what causes the light to look more spread out. The actual light source does not look any bigger, in fact you can hardly see the source because of the glare. You will notice this if you look at the sun through the clouds. The atmosphere is transparent, there is no glare from air. And it certainly does not magnify anything. It simply diffuses the light only slightly.
-
The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it.
The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.
Sounds like it's you who needs to research before posting.
-
The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it.
The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.
Sounds like it's you who needs to research before posting.
Dispersing is not magnifying. Magnification makes an object appear larger by focusing light. Fog does not focus light, disperses, or diffuses the light. This means, in case you don't have a dictionary handy, that the light gets scattered or spread out, causing less of it to reach your eye directly from the source. Some may reach your eye after bouncing a bit, and this is what we know as glare and refraction. None of those things magnify anything.
-
Dispersing is not magnifying. Magnification makes an object appear larger by focusing light.
This is incorrect. Magnification does not occur through focusing light. It occurs by spreading it outwards
Fog does not focus light, disperses, or diffuses the light. This means, in case you don't have a dictionary handy, that the light gets scattered or spread out, causing less of it to reach your eye directly from the source. Some may reach your eye after bouncing a bit, and this is what we know as glare and refraction. None of those things magnify anything.
Dispersion simply means to spread outwards.
dis·per·sion/disˈpərZHən/ (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&cp=1&gs_id=1c&xhr=t&q=define+dispersion)
Noun:
1.The action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area.
2.The state of being dispersed over a wide area.
When light is spread out over a wide area by something it magnifies the image. It's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp.
-
The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it.
The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.
Sounds like it's you who needs to research before posting.
No Tom, the result of dispersion is a spectrum. Consider what a prism does:
http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/light-XV.htm (http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/light-XV.htm)
(http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/images/light-XVa.gif)
The splitting of a ray into its component colours is known as dispersion of light and the band of colours is known as a spectrum.
Actually, it sounds like both of you need to get your terminology straight.
-
oh tom you were doing so well too. fog does not magnify anything. otherwise a light mist would magnify the objects behind the mist for a start. the light is simply spread out. maybe its time you made a new conspiracy thread, talking about things people have a perfectly valid explanation for is something you really struggle at.
-
Markjo, there are different definitions for dispersion. You are not correct because you found an alternative definition. I just quoted the definition I am using. Kindly scroll up.
-
oh tom you were doing so well too. fog does not magnify anything. otherwise a light mist would magnify the objects behind the mist for a start. the light is simply spread out. maybe its time you made a new conspiracy thread, talking about things people have a perfectly valid explanation for is something you really struggle at.
There is an apparent lack of basic science education on this forum. You might want to research the bolded in your quote. I recall learning that magnification is the result of light being spread out in elementary school.
Does a projector "spread the light out" to create a magnified image on a wall? Yep. Does a magnifying glass "spread the light out" to create a magnification. Yep.
Therefore, as is clearly evident, magnification is a result of light spreading apart.
-
Markjo, there are different definitions for dispersion. You are not correct because you found an alternative definition. I just quoted the definition I am using. Kindly scroll up.
Tom, I did not find an alternative definition for dispersion, I found the correct definition for the context of the discussion (optics). Fog does not disperse light, it scatters light resulting in an effect akin to diffusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29)
-
Markjo, kindly type "define dispersion" into Google.
dis·per·sion
noun /disˈpərZHən/ /-SHən/
dispersions, plural
1. The action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area
2. The state of being dispersed over a wide area
3. The pattern of distribution of individuals within a habitat
4. A mixture of one substance dispersed in another medium
5. The separation of white light into colors, or the separation of any radiation according to wavelength
6. The extent to which values of a variable differ from a fixed value such as the mean
Based on the context of the discussion does it follow that I was talking about Rainbows or does it follow that I was talking about light being dispersed over a larger area?
-
Markjo, kindly type "define dispersion" into Google.
dis·per·sion
noun /disˈpərZHən/ /-SHən/
dispersions, plural
1. The action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area
2. The state of being dispersed over a wide area
3. The pattern of distribution of individuals within a habitat
4. A mixture of one substance dispersed in another medium
5. The separation of white light into colors, or the separation of any radiation according to wavelength
6. The extent to which values of a variable differ from a fixed value such as the mean
Based on the context of the discussion does it follow that I was talking about Rainbows or does it follow that I was talking about light being dispersed over a larger area?
The issue is that when people talk about light, scatter, dispersion, and a whole slew of other terms have very specific meanings. So no in context one could plausibly figure out what you meant, but from now on you should use scatter tim.
-
Markjo, kindly type "define dispersion" into Google.
Tom, kindly type "define optical dispersion" into your search engine of choice.
Based on the context of the discussion does it follow that I was talking about Rainbows or does it follow that I was talking about light being dispersed over a larger area?
The discussion is about how light acts as it's traveling through a medium such as fog. This puts the discussion into the realm of optics and therefore terminology dealing with optics is appropriate. Diffusion is a much more accurate term that describes the effect that occurs, not dispersion.
-
The issue is that when people talk about light, scatter, dispersion, and a whole slew of other terms have very specific meanings. So no in context one could plausibly figure out what you meant, but from now on you should use scatter tim.
I didn't even use the word dispersion. I used the word "dispersed" as a verb, to describe what the light was doing. The word dispersed is a very common word. I obviously wasn't talking about rainbows.
Tom, kindly type "define optical dispersion" into your search engine of choice.
Why? The common definition of disperse and dispersion is to spread apart. I was very clearly talking about that. Did anyone in this thread mistake me for talking about rainbows?
Both definitions are clearly in the dictionary, in black and white. My definition is even several slots above yours. You are wrong. Get over it. My usage of the word, especially as a verb, was correct. Cease these diversion tactics.
-
the semantics debate is pointless. please demonstrate tom somewhere else where through perspective objects both reach the vanishing point AND stay the same distance apart. can you also demonstrate fog magnifying something? from what i have read magnifying bends the light, NOT disperse it, depending on your definition of disperse of course. but please ignore the word play and demonstrate your theory.
-
I didn't even use the word dispersion. I used the word "dispersed" as a verb, to describe what the light was doing. The word dispersed is a very common word. I obviously wasn't talking about rainbows.
Does this look familiar, Tom?
The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.
Tom, kindly type "define optical dispersion" into your search engine of choice.
Why? The common definition of disperse is to spread apart. I was very clearly talking about that. Did anyone in this thread mistake me for talking about rainbows?
Both definitions are clearly in the dictionary, in black and white. My definition is even several slots above yours. You are wrong. Get over it. My usage of the word, especially as a verb, was correct. Cease these diversion tactics.
No Tom, you were discussing how light behaves in a medium (in this case, fog). In this context, the common definition for dispersion is the wrong definition. It's not my fault that you were using the wrong word to describe a specific optical phenomenon. Again, diffusion would have been a much better choice because it more accurately describes what happens to light in fog.
As light travels through fog, the droplets of water refract (bend) light in more or less random directions. In order for magnification to occur, the light must be refracted in a very focused manner; not in a random manner that fog would cause.
-
I told you to cease these diversion tactics. Now I will cease providing an outlet for your time all together.
-
If you consider getting your facts straight a diversion, then so be it.
-
oh tom you were doing so well too. fog does not magnify anything. otherwise a light mist would magnify the objects behind the mist for a start. the light is simply spread out. maybe its time you made a new conspiracy thread, talking about things people have a perfectly valid explanation for is something you really struggle at.
There is an apparent lack of basic science education on this forum. You might want to research the bolded in your quote. I recall learning that magnification is the result of light being spread out in elementary school.
Does a projector "spread the light out" to create a magnified image on a wall? Yep. Does a magnifying glass "spread the light out" to create a magnification. Yep.
Therefore, as is clearly evident, magnification is a result of light spreading apart.
More accurately, light is refracted through a more optically dense medium through a curved surface. This causes the light to be refracted in different directions.
However, since air is neither curved nor has a significant index of refraction from a vaccuum, air can't magnify any light source.
-
(http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/seeinglife/science/imaging/files/lens.gif)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the air is not a convex lens. It does not and cannot magnify anything. Go back to elementary school Tom.
-
There are different ways for light to spread out and magnify. Shine a flashlight at a wall sometime.
-
There are different ways for light to spread out and magnify. Shine a flashlight at a wall sometime.
to achieve what exactly?
-
There are different ways for light to spread out and magnify. Shine a flashlight at a wall sometime.
to achieve what exactly?
It will demonstrate to the LordDave and ThinkingMan that magnification is not only achieved through a convex lens.
-
There are different ways for light to spread out and magnify. Shine a flashlight at a wall sometime.
to achieve what exactly?
It will demonstrate to the LordDave and ThinkingMan that magnification is not only achieved through a convex lens.
Are you trying to say that a flashflight beam is magnifies in the air? Seriously Tom, go back to elementary school, my 6 year old son can understand that flashlights don't magnify light. It's just a light source. If a flashlight bulb were outside of the fixture, the light would go in all directions from the source. That's not magnification.
-
There are different ways for light to spread out and magnify. Shine a flashlight at a wall sometime.
to achieve what exactly?
It will demonstrate to the LordDave and ThinkingMan that magnification is not only achieved through a convex lens.
i dont see how a torch will achieve this, especially as they have a sort of lens type thingy on it already. please demonstrate a claim for a change tom. you are all talk and no action. a true keyboard warrior.
-
Are you trying to say that a flashflight beam is magnifies in the air? Seriously Tom, go back to elementary school, my 6 year old son can understand that flashlights don't magnify light. It's just a light source.
The rays of a flashlight are magnified by the fact that the rays are spreading outwards from the source. If you put on a shadow puppet show on a wall 4 feet away the white spot of the flashlight will be small. If you put on a shadow puppet show on a wall 14 feet away the white spot will be magnified and the shadow puppets will appear larger on the wall.
If a flashlight bulb were outside of the fixture, the light would go in all directions from the source. That's not magnification.
The flashlight example is magnification via projection.
A bare lightbulb in a room also projects its light onto a greater surface area. You could have shadow puppet shows with a light bulb and see the shadows magnified on the walls and ceiling. It's no different.
i dont see how a torch will achieve this, especially as they have a sort of lens type thingy on it already.
Regular consumer flashlights typically just have a transparent plastic disk in front of the bulb so that nothing breaks it. If you were to take it out you would find that its does not magnify things when you look through it.
The military and police sometimes use flashlights with lenses to limit the spread of the beams for stealth purposes, but those aren't the kind you'll pick up at the drug store.
please demonstrate a claim for a change tom. you are all talk and no action. a true keyboard warrior.
What do I need to demonstrate? Does anyone here doubt that when you shine a flashlight at a wall it creates a spot of light larger than the source?
-
Are you trying to say that a flashflight beam is magnifies in the air? Seriously Tom, go back to elementary school, my 6 year old son can understand that flashlights don't magnify light. It's just a light source.
The rays of a flashlight are magnified by the fact that the rays are spreading outwards from the source. If you put on a shadow puppet show on a wall 4 feet away the white spot of the flashlight will be small. If you put on a shadow puppet show on a wall 14 feet away the white spot will be magnified and the shadow puppets will appear larger on the wall.
Light spreading over a large surface area is not magnification. If the flashlight was an example of magnification, if I stood in front of the flashlight 14 feet away, the light source would look massive.
If a flashlight bulb were outside of the fixture, the light would go in all directions from the source. That's not magnification.
The flashlight example is magnification via projection.
A bare lightbulb in a room also projects its light onto a greater surface area. You could have shadow puppet shows with a light bulb and see the shadows magnified on the wall. It's no different.
Again, that's not magnification. Magnification requires a convex lens to direct light from an object or image to a focal point, aka your eye.
Flashlights do not have lenses.
Most flashlights, at least every one I have seen, do in face have lenses. It protects the bulb.
What do I need to demonstrate? Does anyone here doubt that when you shine a flashlight at a wall it creates a spot of light larger than the source?
No, nobody doubts that. But it's not magnification. Please read above. I'll repeat myself. You need a convex lens to direct light to a focal point, aka your eye.
-
i dont see how a torch will achieve this, especially as they have a sort of lens type thingy on it already.
Regular consumer flashlights typically just have a transparent plastic disk in front of the bulb so that nothing breaks it. If you were to take it out you would find that its does not magnify things when you look through it.
The military and police sometimes use flashlights with lenses to limit the spread of the beams for stealth purposes, but those aren't the kind you'll pick up at the drug store.
please demonstrate a claim for a change tom. you are all talk and no action. a true keyboard warrior.
What do I need to demonstrate? Does anyone here doubt that when you shine a flashlight at a wall it creates a spot of light larger than the source?
this was a real laugh out loud moment! the light is shining in all directions. if i look at the bulb its the same size! plus a bulb is pretty much a lens of sorts too, but thats not even the issue.
now i see why i didnt understand how it was magnifying. it simply isnt!
-
Light spreading over a large surface area is not magnification.
Yes it is. When an image or light source has been projected onto a larger surface area it has been magnified. Magnification is simply an increase in size, volume, or significance (http://magnify.askdefine.com/).
magnify
Verb
1. increase in size, volume or significance; "Her terror was magnified in her mind"
2. to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth; "tended to romanticize and exaggerate this `gracious Old South' imagery"
3. make large; "blow up an image"
Extensive Definition
Magnification is the process of enlarging something only in appearance, not in physical size. Magnification is also a number describing by which factor an object was magnified. When this number is less than one it refers to a reduction in size, sometimes called minification.
Typically magnification is related to scaling up visuals or images to be able to see more detail, increasing resolution, using optics, printing techniques, or digital processing. In all cases, the magnification of the image does not change the perspective of the image.
If the flashlight was an example of magnification, if I stood in front of the flashlight 14 feet away, the light source would look massive.
That's correct, because the image of your shadow has been magnified.
Again, that's not magnification. Magnification requires a convex lens to direct light from an object or image to a focal point, aka your eye.
Incorrect. The definition says nothing about a convex lens being required. The above description even says that an increased size via digital processing or printing techniques could be called magnification.
Most flashlights, at least every one I have seen, do in face have lenses. It protects the bulb.
A transparent disk of plastic which does not spread apart or concentrate light is not a lens. Kindly type "define lens" in Google.
lens
noun
1. A piece of glass or other transparent substance with curved sides for concentrating or dispersing light rays, used singly (as in a magnifying glass) or with other lenses (as in a telescope)
2. The light-gathering device of a camera, typically containing a group of compound lenses
3. An object or device that focuses or otherwise modifies the direction of movement of light, sound, electrons, etc
Edit: Hey look Markjo, disperse is used in definition #1 in connection with light and optics to describe light spreading apart, and not chromatic dispersion/rainbows. :o
-
this was a real laugh out loud moment! the light is shining in all directions. if i look at the bulb its the same size! plus a bulb is pretty much a lens of sorts too, but thats not even the issue.
now i see why i didnt understand how it was magnifying. it simply isnt!
It simply is, as magnification is an increase of size and has nothing to do with the method. See above.
-
i suppose your definition would be correct, only most would not refer to this as magnification.
you would hear that the light spreads. but have you ever heard somebody say "hey look at my torch magnifying on that wall!"
this is most interesting;
Typically magnification is related to scaling up visuals or images to be able to see more detail, increasing resolution, using optics, printing techniques, or digital processing. In all cases, the magnification of the image does not change the perspective of the image.
that whole definition contradict the entire argument.
-
you own silver bullet cripples this thread too;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55752.0.html#.UGEhY1FihnA (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55752.0.html#.UGEhY1FihnA)
-
Edit: Hey look Markjo, disperse is used in definition #1 in connection with light and optics to describe light spreading apart, and not chromatic dispersion/rainbows. :o
I wasn't disputing disperse. I was disputing dispersion. Although, in the of context of light shining through fog, I don't think that disperse was the right word for the point that you were trying to make.
-
Doesn't like only refract when it goes from an area of lower index of refraction to higher then back to the original?
-
Yes it is. When an image or light source has been projected onto a larger surface area it has been magnified. Magnification is simply an increase in size, volume, or significance (http://magnify.askdefine.com/).
magnify
Verb
1. increase in size, volume or significance; "Her terror was magnified in her mind"
2. to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth; "tended to romanticize and exaggerate this `gracious Old South' imagery"
3. make large; "blow up an image"
Extensive Definition
Magnification is the process of enlarging something only in appearance, not in physical size. Magnification is also a number describing by which factor an object was magnified. When this number is less than one it refers to a reduction in size, sometimes called minification.
Typically magnification is related to scaling up visuals or images to be able to see more detail, increasing resolution, using optics, printing techniques, or digital processing. In all cases, the magnification of the image does not change the perspective of the image.
Regardless, that says nothing about light going in a straight line from point a to point b. It is the process of enlarging something in appearance. That does not mean light leaving the source, and getting stopped by an object, therefore casing a shadow behind the object.
If the flashlight was an example of magnification, if I stood in front of the flashlight 14 feet away, the light source would look massive.
That's correct, because the image of your shadow has been magnified.
Take a look at that, you didn't even respond to what I said. The light source, the source, if I were looking at it, would look massive. It would "change only in appearance." If I stare at a flashlight, it actually looks smaller from farther away. Therefore it is not magnified.
Incorrect. The definition says nothing about a convex lens being required. The above description even says that an increased size via digital processing or printing techniques could be called magnification.
You're right, it doesn't, but you need a way to make the the image look larger. In optics, that would be a convex lens. So a convex lens is required.
A transparent disk of plastic which does not spread apart or concentrate light is not a lens. Kindly type "define lens" in Google.
lens
noun
1. A piece of glass or other transparent substance with curved sides for concentrating or dispersing light rays,
used singly (as in a magnifying glass) or with other lenses (as in a telescope)
2. The light-gathering device of a camera, typically containing a group of compound lenses
3. An object or device that focuses or otherwise modifies the direction of movement of light, sound, electrons, etc
[/list]
What's that in bold? Seems suggestive to me.
-
There are different ways for light to spread out and magnify. Shine a flashlight at a wall sometime.
to achieve what exactly?
It will demonstrate to the LordDave and ThinkingMan that magnification is not only achieved through a convex lens.
Mirrors.
The light is larger because of a curved, mirrored surface behind and around the bulb. It reflects the light in multiple directions.
The shadow is not magnification. The light source spreads out from its point of origin. As an object get's closer, the surface area of the light source being blocked increases. The amount of light blocked stays the same as the intensity of the light decreases as it spreads out.
This only works on omnidirectional lights. Lasers and other monosirectional light sources do not cast such shadows.