1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Disprove RET

« on: July 07, 2011, 02:58:16 AM »

Ski is correct. The sun would need to be as far below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon.

Ski is also correct that the eclipse should be straight up and down, not coming from the side or at an angle.

Please see my post above for an explanation of why this is not true, thanks.

Just an excerpt...

In order for the Earth to cast a shadow on the Moon, it is not necessary that the Sun be directly opposite the Moon, as you say.
However, I think what you meant to say is that the Sun must be directly opposite the Moon (with the Earth in between) if the Moon is to be completely dark, which is what we know as a Lunar eclipse. That is, of course, very true - and you can even see it in the picture I included above.
However, one can plainly see that a partial shadow in the penumbra is possible in the RE model with the Sun not directly opposite the Moon - which is what is called selenelion and is observed in Ski's picture.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Disprove RET

« on: July 06, 2011, 11:59:03 AM »

Guys, as I've just shown in my previous post, this picture (in Ski's post) is easily explainable in the RE model.

First of all, notice something: the darker portion of the Moon is not completely black, but obviously dimmer.

Now look at this picture regarding the RE model again:



Note that there is a shadow cast on the Moon (in the leftmost and rightmost positions) which covers only a portion of it. Notice also that the Moon is being shadowed by the Earth and is in the penumbra, not the umbra. The difference is that the umbra is completely dark (a total Lunar eclipse) and the penumbra is only slightly - but noticeably - darkened. Finally, note that in Ski's nice picture (and the article), both the Moon and the Sun are visible. Observe (from the above diagram of the RE model) that this is exactly what is predicted.
Both the Sun and the partially-obscured Moon should be (and are) visible in the RE model.


I'll take a moment on this comment now:

If that's the shadow of the earth on the moon, then the sun must be an equal distance below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon. Hence, since it is not pitch dark, this clearly cannot be true. A stunning disproof of RET.

This is what I wanted to dispel at the top of my post.
In order for the Earth to cast a shadow on the Moon, it is not necessary that the Sun be directly opposite the Moon, as you say.
However, I think what you meant to say is that the Sun must be directly opposite the Moon (with the Earth in between) if the Moon is to be completely dark, which is what we know as a Lunar eclipse. That is, of course, very true - and you can even see it in the picture I included above.
However, one can plainly see that a partial shadow in the penumbra is possible in the RE model with the Sun not directly opposite the Moon - which is what is called selenelion and is observed in Ski's picture.


Thanks, I hope that helped.
be cool

EDIT: edited for clarity.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Disprove RET

« on: July 05, 2011, 05:25:14 PM »

During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.

You mean like this?...

Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round.

You're kinda right... The assumption that the Sun's rays arrive parallel is an approximation. In reality, of course, they don't arrive parallel. But it's a very good assumption for small areas on the Earth's surface (like a city, or small country even).
But when you consider systems like the whole Earth or the Earth-Sun-Moon system, you can't assume they're parallel, which is why you get umbra/penumbra pictures like this:




Another note on how the almost parallel approximation effects Eratosthenes' famous proof:
Eratosthenes assumed that the Sun's rays arrive approximately parallel, but of course they don't. However, this doesn't mean that the entire proof is incorrect. It only means that he was off by a small amount, proportional to the magnitude of the error. And since the error in the assumption is very small (because the Sun is very far away), the error in the result is small.
This is easy to see if you draw it out yourself, which I suggest you do before claiming this is nonsense. I'll put one up if you really don't feel like drawing it, but the best editor I have is MS Paint, so that'll be a pain...

Thanks

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A couple of questions.

« on: July 03, 2011, 01:42:57 PM »

How could a flat body maintain an atmosphere?

In my (work in progress) model, the atmosphere is much like the surface tension on a lake. It is simply the layer between air and ether.

Sorry, really don't mean to be rude, but I couldn't stop laughing.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: July 01, 2011, 12:48:38 PM »

The daylight data on that map assumes that the earth is a globe. It's not.

No, they daylight data on that map is what is observed from collected data.

It's not a coincidence that the spherical Earth predicts that too though...

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help

« on: July 01, 2011, 11:37:52 AM »

The following "problem" has been raised with Problem 1) regarding the light from the FE Sun. I'll dispel it here.

I own a flashlight.  It does not illuminate my entire house at once.  I have often worked as a spotlight operator.  The spotlight does not illuminate the whole stage at once - that's the point of using it.

And don't forget, the inverse square law does not apply to light beams that have been focused via a reflector and/or a lens.  This is a point it seems hard for many people to understand, but it's one of the basic reasons to use a reflector or lens.

You are correct that a flashlight does not illuminate the entire house.
But try this, turn on your flashlight and set it down on the table. Now, step a few feet back and look at it from an angle of almost 90 degrees (even 60 deg. would be good) measured from the direction that the light exits. You will still be able to see the light shining inside the head of the flashlight - even though the flashlight is only directly illuminating the area in front of it.

Everyone please feel free to post pictures of this. Like so:

See how the illumination is visible even at an extreme angle, which is no where within the scope of direct illumination?


Since the Sun works much similar to this mechanism in the FE model, then this side-ways illumination should be visible everywhere on the FE, not just on the small fraction that the light is illuminating directly.
(This is what is shown in the diagrams above in Problem 1).)

The same would apply to your average lighthouse, except that the lighthouse uses elaborate optics to focus the light, and there is a massive concrete structure surrounding it.

And it is obvious that neither of these - especially the elaborate focusing mechanism - are observed on the Sun. Even with a telescope and a solar filter, which I have used to look at the Sun.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding your FAQ, I think you need to update this statement:

« on: July 01, 2011, 11:13:49 AM »

Just gonna leave this here...

It is impossible for the Sun to be a spotlight regardless if you can draw it out or not (which you cannot).
I refer you to this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
Specifically, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" farther down.

Please explain that.
Thanks, be cool.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: July 01, 2011, 11:09:33 AM »

P.S.
It is impossible for the Sun to be a spotlight regardless if you can draw it out or not (which you cannot).
I refer you to this thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
Specifically, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" farther down.

Please explain that.
Thanks, be cool.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: June 29, 2011, 09:41:27 PM »

FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

Sorry, I simply don't see how that's true.  If it were, it would be true for RET also.

The seasons change because of the length of the day and the inclination of the sun in the sky - same for FE or RE.  Having lived various places from 8 degrees to 60 degrees north of the equator I can attest to these changes.  Seems pretty simple.

FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

You are going to have to be more specific as to why you believe this.  As you move farther away from the point where the suns rays are perpendicular, the average intensity goes down.  As that point moves from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn and back again throughout the year, the inner and outer hemiplanes experiance opposite variations in intensity, or seasons.  Like I said earlier, it is the same in principle.

You guys are correct that I haven't explained myself very well. I'll do so now.

For a seasonal effect, only the point at which the suns rays are perpendicular has to change.

Isn't it true that in the FET, the Sun must move over the Earth in some way in order to explain how some areas of the Earth are lit and some areas are dark at different parts of the day?

Since this must be true to explain the day and night time, then, over the course of a day, the Sun must be directly overhead different parts of the Earth.

Thus, over the course of a day, the the point at which the Sun's rays are perpendicular to the Earth must change.

And so, according to Robbyj's words, this is a seasonal effect. Thus, over the course of a day, the Earth experiences seasonal changes.


Sorry it wasn't too clear before, but I hope that helped.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round

« on: June 29, 2011, 09:33:15 PM »

It is known that the stars and heavens have some sort of attraction to them. This is directly evidenced by gravitational lensing, etc.

However, it cannot be assumed that the attracting element is puller particles or bendy space. Those are unsupported hypothesis'.

Tom, the heavens could not possibly exert a force on the Foucault Pendulum in FET.
See problems 3), 4), and 5) in this thread: (to which you have yet to respond)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

I'll briefly mention here why:
Since the heavens do not exert an attraction to the Earth in FET, then there is no way it could exert a force on something that is made of or comes from the Earth. If the heavens can exert a force on something that is made from the Earth, then a theory is necessary to explain how an object, once removed from the Earth, gains the attraction to the heavens.

Your input is appreciated,
be cool

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding your FAQ, I think you need to update this statement:

« on: June 29, 2011, 07:45:34 AM »

Very nice graphic, thanks!

It would be interesting to play around with that some to see what size and shape spot would be needed to concur with standard observations of the sun. Like the equinox, solstices, etc.

Not to be inflammatory, but shouldn't a competing theory have to show that it predicts certain phenomena - like the variation of daylight hours - better or at the same level as the other theory, before even it's believers take it seriously?

Also, please see the following thread because it brings up the point that the current model of the FE Sun cannot shine light on just one part of the Earth at a time, it must illuminate (even slightly) the entire Earth all the time.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0
(Specifically "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" at the bottom. Thanks)

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Temperature of the Sun in FET?

« on: June 29, 2011, 07:41:02 AM »

You wont get any numbers because it wouldn't be very Zetetic of them to guess.

Good point. If possible, I'd like to see some reasoning or derivation of how you get the number, whenever someone posts one.

Many thanks.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: June 29, 2011, 07:31:37 AM »

For a seasonal effect, only the point at which the suns rays are perpendicular has to change.  This too is the same in principle, only the mechanism changes.

True, but in the FE model of the Sun, the Sun moves over the Earth daily - in order to explain daylight hours - not seasonally. So, according to this reasoning, the FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

I read, evaluated, and responded to your post as to why I believe your reasoning is correct or incorrect and I expect the same luxury if we are to continue this conversation any further.

Sorry if I came of harsh, but as you can see, I am doing the same. And thank you for the mutual respect you are showing.
I would also like to get some feedback on these issues:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

Although only tangentially related, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" are key to understanding the Sun and current problems in the FE model.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Temperature of the Sun in FET?

« on: June 29, 2011, 07:20:17 AM »

Ha okay guys, jokes aside, what temperature (if any) does FET predict for the Sun?
I'm looking to make some calculations and I really need this figure.

What do you need this figure for? I will calculate it for you if there is a good reason.

Just some calculations about the energy received by the Earth from the Sun.

It would really help, thanks a lot. Or if it's too much trouble, you could tell me how to get the figure, and I'll derive it myself.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: An experiment to prove once and for all the nature of the earth

« on: June 29, 2011, 07:16:33 AM »

I second the notion that everyone do this. It sounds like a great idea.

Plus, wouldn't you like to prove who's right once and for all?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: June 29, 2011, 01:55:07 AM »

I did actually, this is both mathematically and empirically (also logically - but that doesn't count much around here) supported.

So I ask you again to provide some rigorous alternative the theory that I presented (as part of the Heliocentric RET).
Additionally, I would like to ask you find the flaw in my reasoning other than simply stating it is not true, or "awesome".

Something that you are missing in your derivation are the required assumptions needed for it to work, most importantly that the sun is much larger than and much farther away from earth therefore the sun's rays are assumed to be perfectly parallel.  The ranges of intensity are based on the angle of incidence of the rays relative to the surface of the earth, which in your example curves away from perpendicular. 

If the assumptions are changed to a smaller sun that is closer to the surface, the rays can no longer be assumed parallel and would lower in intensity as you move away from perpendicular in one direction or the other.  Once the assumptions are substituted the principle is the same.

You're right in that the RE Sun has to be very far away. But it can be easily shown that this is the case - just ask if you want to see how. Eratosthenes and Aristarchus knew this more than 2000 years ago.

But in the FE model of the Sun, the Sun is assumed to be a "spotlight". Even if your reasoning is correct, that would mean that intensity falls of greatly with distance from the center of incidence of light rays on the Earth. So this would not really explain the seasons since this effect is constant over the entire year.

But you'll notice that there are many more problems with the FE model of the Sun - ie that it illuminates the entire Earth all the time.
See this thread for more on the FE Sun: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

EDIT: Specifically, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" farther down. Thanks

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Temperature of the Sun in FET?

« on: June 29, 2011, 01:07:16 AM »

Ha okay guys, jokes aside, what temperature (if any) does FET predict for the Sun?
I'm looking to make some calculations and I really need this figure.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Temperature of the Sun in FET?

« on: June 28, 2011, 10:38:35 PM »

Just curious as to what the temperature of the Sun is in the FE model.

Thanks.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: June 28, 2011, 06:03:59 PM »

I'd like to see some proof that the varying daylight hours are sufficient to cause the drastic differences in temperature - surely one must exist in FET.

   I think you need to do some basic reading on the seasons.  As awesome as your drawing is, it is not the cause of the seasons.  Read, friend, read.  Or listen in class.

I did actually, this is both mathematically and empirically (also logically - but that doesn't count much around here) supported.

So I ask you again to provide some rigorous alternative the theory that I presented (as part of the Heliocentric RET).
Additionally, I would like to ask you find the flaw in my reasoning other than simply stating it is not true, or "awesome".

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help

« on: June 28, 2011, 04:25:29 PM »

I'm really itching to have these questions answered soon.
If i need to remove this post, and make 11 separate ones, please let me know.

Otherwise, i am very eager to get some input on these matters.

Thanks again.

Still waiting here guys.

I know this isn't the speediest of forums, but more than reasonable time has passed. I hope you guys aren't just ignoring this...


In the meantime, REers, what do you think?

21

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Quick question regarding Math on this site

« on: June 28, 2011, 04:21:41 PM »

i'll just pretend you said this:

And if the answer is "no", i'd like to request that a mod or siteadmin make that change. Thanks.

Start here

Thanks, that was helpful. So then, no the site does not support TeX? Is there any other way to write mathematical symbols aside from copy/pasting?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: June 28, 2011, 04:11:52 PM »

This has been gone over in many other threads.

In FET, the position of the sun varies throughout the year.  In June it is farthest north (over the tropic of Cancer) and in December the farthest South (tropic of Capricorn).  Not much different than the RET, really - and easily observable.

The seasons are mostly caused be the varying length of daylight hours, not other effects.

Thanks for the input, there.

I'd like to see some proof that the varying daylight hours are sufficient to cause the drastic differences in temperature - surely one must exist in FET.
Also, it seems that this must be a mathematical proof - i really see no other way around it, given the accuracy to which FET needs to compute the temperature differences.

Thanks, i can't wait to see the proof.

23

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Quick question regarding Math on this site

« on: June 28, 2011, 05:10:18 AM »

Let's not get off topic here guys, although i appreciate the input.

I'm just looking for a yes/no.

And if the answer is "no", i'd like to request that a mod or siteadmin make that change. Thanks.

24

Suggestions & Concerns / Quick question regarding Math on this site

« on: June 28, 2011, 03:36:05 AM »

Do the FES boards support any math writing applications such as LaTeX or jsMath? - and if not, why?

I'm just curious because i intend on using them if the site supports it.

Thanks.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some Inconsistencies With FET - Please Help

« on: June 28, 2011, 03:12:31 AM »

I'm really itching to have these questions answered soon.
If i need to remove this post, and make 11 separate ones, please let me know.

Otherwise, i am very eager to get some input on these matters.

Thanks again.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?

« on: June 27, 2011, 10:52:36 PM »

Ha!  This reminds me of something I heard on the radio in Florida.  The little girl announcer was saying that the incidence of skin cancer in Florida is higher than elsewhere "Because we are closer to the sun."  LOL

you're right that our distance to the Sun has very little to do with the temperature. in fact, in the heliocentric RE model, the Earth is closest to the Sun in the Winter, and farthest in the Summer - due to the elliptical path of the Earth around the Sun.

So actually, the seasons work more like this:



Note how, in the Summer, the Sun's rays are more concentrated, and in the Winter the Sun's rays are more spread out on the Earth's surface. Since the Sun's rays are more concentrated in the Summer, the Earth is hotter in that region. Similarly for the Winter.

You can formalize this in the following way:
Intensity is defined as Energy per second (which is Power) spread over a certain distance (or area). In the illustration, each ray of light represents a certain amount of energy - and power - (since each light ray carries some energy). Therefore,

I = N*P / D,

where
I = intensity,
N = the number of rays of light,
P = the energy per second of one ray of light, and
D = the distance that the light is incident on.

this gives:
I(S) = 3*P / s

and
I(W) = 3*P / (s + s')

thus the ratio:

I(S) / I(W) = (s+s')/s = 1 + s'/s

Thus I(S) > I(W), showing that it is hotter in the Summer than in the Winter.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

I'm eager to see some formulation for the cause of the seasons in FET.

Thanks, be cool guys.

EDIT: updated my picture to show s, s'

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding your FAQ, I think you need to update this statement:

« on: June 27, 2011, 09:59:16 PM »

correct, i did not. i demonstrated that the Sun's spotlight cannot illuminate only parts of the Earth at a time. the spotlight would still cast light on the entire FE. that is it actual problem with the spotlight-Sun model (among others)

As light passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered, or faded, or something of the sort. Therefore, the light would be more concentrated at the closest point to the Sun on the Earth.

even so, the light would still be visible (even though dimmer) from all places on the FE.
again, this is not observed.

also, the phenomenon you mentioned is called Compton Scattering, which scatters light by the following equation:

L' - L = h/(mc) ( 1 - cos(A) ),

where
L' is the final wavelength of the light,
L is the initial wavelength,
h is Planck's constant (h = 6.626 * 10^(-34) J s),
m is the mass of the object it scatters off (typically an electron; m = 9.11 * 10^(-31) kg),
c is the speed of light (c = 3.00 * 10^8 m/s), and
A is the angle that the light is scattered.

However, the light doesn't get faded at all, it still has the same intensity. it only shifts in wavelength, so the color changes.
So actually, the Compton Effect would spread the light out more, making the distribution of light more even, not more concentrated.
Thus, the Compton Effect is a bigger problem for FET.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding your FAQ, I think you need to update this statement:

« on: June 27, 2011, 07:03:47 PM »

if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.

A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.

Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.

The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.

Why not?

this is why:

actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

thanks

I didn't see where you demonstrated that the sun's spotlight has to be elliptical and not circular.

correct, i did not. i demonstrated that the Sun's spotlight cannot illuminate only parts of the Earth at a time. the spotlight would still cast light on the entire FE. that is it actual problem with the spotlight-Sun model (among others)

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding your FAQ, I think you need to update this statement:

« on: June 27, 2011, 06:13:20 PM »

if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.

A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.

Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.

The sun does not make a circular "spotlight" though.

Why not?

this is why:

actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

thanks

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Regarding your FAQ, I think you need to update this statement:

« on: June 27, 2011, 06:07:18 PM »

if those videos are actually showing the "circle" of the flat Earth, then we should see all of the continents simultaneously. however, this is not what we see in these videos. there are many of them, some in which you can clearly see only a few of the continents on one hemisphere of a round Earth.

A thick blue atmosphere and uncountable clouds obscures most of the earth's surface in the op's video. It's hard to say what can be seen.

Also keep in mind that we would not be able to see the entire earth in FET. You would be looking down at the circle of the sun's light upon the earth. You would not see anything which is in night.

actually, this is not true. at the very least, there are problems with the "spotlight" Sun model. please see "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited) in my thread:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

thanks