The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: realNarcberry on December 07, 2017, 10:13:53 AM
-
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.
In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.
No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!
-
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.
In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.
No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!
I didn't see your calculations showing that the focal point for the diffracted light would be on the surface of the Earth. Did you omit them from your post or did you just not bother doing them?
-
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
-
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be. I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on.
Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?
-
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be. I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on.
Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?
Happy to help (http://bfy.tw/FRwG)
-
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be. I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on.
Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?
Happy to help (http://bfy.tw/FRwG)
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?
-
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?
Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
-
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?
Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
It also requires a 'perfectly circular occluder' for the focusing. The moon is quite irregular around the 'edges' as it were.
-
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be. I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on.
Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?
Happy to help (http://bfy.tw/FRwG)
I'm sorry, but it's apparent from your google search that you don't understand the question. I'll try again.
In order for you hypothesis of a scorched Earth to be correct, the focal point of the diffracted solar light would have to be the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. None of the works in your signature link have any calculations showing where the focal point of a lunar aragoscope would be. None of the links in your google search address where the focal point of a lunar aragoscope would be. Your initial post has no demonstration that the focal point would actually be at the correct distance to burn the Earth.
Since you're so fond of people doing their own work, I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to have to go through the actual process of calculating where the focal point would be to disprove your claim, seeing as it's entirely your responsibility to do the calculation supporting your currently baseless assertion.
Come back when you've done your homework.
-
By the way, you don't get to be arrogant until you're competent.
-
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?
Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
It also requires a 'perfectly circular occluder' for the focusing. The moon is quite irregular around the 'edges' as it were.
The experiment yields results with coins - which are much more irregular in shape than the moon. I think you underestimate just how round the moon would be in RET. It's only in FET that the shape would be irregular enough to distort the image.
-
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.
In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.
No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?
-
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?
It does, great point!
Unlike RET, the moon is way to close in FET to the light source as well as to the earth. All light will be excluded except at the edge.
-
The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge
-
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?
It does, great point!
Unlike RET, the moon is way to close in FET to the light source as well as to the earth. All light will be excluded except at the edge.
Do you have the calculations for the focal length of a lunar aragoscope in this model? How can you be certain the moon is too close unless you do the math? It looks like you have 2 assignments now. Stop wasting time here, you've got math to do! Run along!
-
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge
That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
-
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge
That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length
-
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge
That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length
Happy to help (http://bfy.tw/FRwG)
-
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge
That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length
Happy to help (http://bfy.tw/FRwG)
You have not even done any calculation? You just pulled it out of your ass? Whodathunkit?
-
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?
Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
The sun is only 1 AU away. That's nothing compared to cosmic distances. Because the sun is large and that close (cosmologically), it has an apparent size of about a half degree. A true point source has an apparent size of zero degrees. A pinhole camera with a pinhole 1/2 degree across would be pretty terrible.
Any more questions?
-
The sun is only 1 AU away. That's nothing compared to cosmic distances.
Uh, that IS a cosmic distance. Exactly 1 of them.
-
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?
It does, great point!
Unlike RET, the moon is way to close in FET to the light source as well as to the earth. All light will be excluded except at the edge.
Did you miss the part where the image formed is much dimmer than if an actual lens of comparable size was used? Sounds like it's more like a tiny fraction of "the sun's tremendous energy" would be focused, assuming that the focal length of the interference patterns is correct in the first place.
-
So imagine a moon sized lens - plenty of optical strength to reduce and still have tremendous power. Even a reduction to, say, the strength of a magnifying glass would still cause fires and scorching
-
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge
That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length
Happy to help (http://bfy.tw/FRwG)
Again?? There is nothing relevant in that link. If you believe the moon could make an aragoscope that could scorch the Earth, then it's up to you to do the math to show what the focal length is.
If you don't know how, I would do it for you, but you have to ask nicely.
-
That's where you're wrong. You are the one asserting the focal length is wrong. And you know the idiom, "He who asserts must prove"
I never asserted the focal length was wrong.
-
That's where you're wrong. You are the one asserting the focal length is wrong. And you know the idiom, "He who asserts must prove"
I never asserted the focal length was wrong.
You asserted that the focal length was the correct length to scorch the Earth. I never said it wasn't, I asked to see your calculations.
Ball is still in your court dumbass.
-
So imagine a moon sized lens - plenty of optical strength to reduce and still have tremendous power. Even a reduction to, say, the strength of a magnifying glass would still cause fires and scorching
Again, you have yet to show any evidence that any of that power would focus to any point on the surface of the earth.
It never ceases to amaze me how many claims that FE'ers make about RET without actually doing the math to prove their point.
-
You asserted that the focal length was the correct length to scorch the Earth.
Thanks for pointing that out, could you please quote me so I can link to the event and give it the attention it deserves?
-
You asserted that the focal length was the correct length to scorch the Earth.
Thanks for pointing that out, could you please quote me so I can link to the event and give it the attention it deserves?
You bet! First post in this thread:
This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.
-
And it would too!
-
And it would too!
Would it really? Have you done the math or is this just another one of your ridiculous floating oceans claims?
-
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.
In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.
No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!
The same reason why you dont get sunburned when your under a beach umbrella on a sunny day stupid. Seriously, is that actually a legit question? Is this april fools day? Am I on punked right now? Wheres the camera? Seriously...
-
And it would too!
Great! Just supply your math and we can talk about this like grown ups!
-
The only thing scorched during the eclipse, were the asses of every flat-earther on the globe.
-
The eclipse said nothing of the shape of the earth, either way.
-
The eclipse said nothing of the shape of the earth, either way.
Your right, one single eclipse does not show the shape of the earth. However if the earth was flat not every single eclipse or moon phase would show it to be round now would it. Its kinda like the sunset i guess. If it was only the sunset that we had to prove a round earth than maybe the flat earthers would have a debate. But since its so much more than the sunset, all of the evidence or "nouns" as you like to call them build a case to prove a round earth. Thats why round earthers know the earth is round and flat earthers think the earth is round. Big difference and only once can be right, and its the "roundies" by a long shot.
-
I don't know. Kepler observed quite a few daytime eclipses that might beg to differ.
-
I don't know. Kepler observed quite a few daytime eclipses that might beg to differ.
So, your taking one other flat earthers observation and take that as hard evidence?
-
Kepler was not a flat earther. He was an astronomer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
-
Kepler was not a flat earther. He was an astronomer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
And nowhere does it say anything about any eclipses that were anything but normal
-
Yeah, because you'd actually have to had read his work.
-
Yeah, because you'd actually have to had read his work.
And even if she did see an eclipse that didnt show a round profile on the moon, why is she the only one that saw it?
-
I don't know. Kepler observed quite a few daytime eclipses that might beg to differ.
I seriously doubt that Kepler personally observed more than one daytime full lunar eclipse in his lifetime, although he may have heard accounts of others. Even so, can you provide any documented observations of the sun and fully eclipsed moon being both observed more than two degrees above the horizon at the same time? I ask because atmospheric refraction can reasonably explain the sun and fully eclipsed moon both being seen just above the horizon at the same time.
-
Somehow the words “in theory” got left out of the conversation. As well as the words, “light intensity would be lower” was left out. This is exactly the opposite of what you would need to scorch the earth. You would want something that makes the sun brighter not dimmer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragoscope
-
Experiments demonstrating the existance of Poisson's Spot (the diffractive "focus" point of an aragoscope) have been made and well understood for 200 years.
While the point is brighter than the surrounding shadow, the maximum power intensity on axis is no greater than the undisturbed wavefront (what would be present without the obscuration).
Even if everything else was correct (point source or collimated light, correct distances and sizes for whatever geometry you choose), the intensity at any point on the Earth would not be any greater than usual.