Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jargo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 15, 2009, 02:01:02 PM »
As the sun is not fixed above one latitude, he could also take measurements at different times of the year and compare to see if the radiance changes with the seasons.

You wouldn't have to wait for a season to change. The angle that light hits the earth varies in day as sun rices and sets.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 15, 2009, 11:38:41 AM »
Quote
Why, yes he did. Right here:

I don't see the part where he takes the solar panel to the equator or to the north pole to measure output. In an experiment you have to, you know, have more than one variable.

Your claim was that radiance varies with latitude. I have provided you with two measurements made in different latitudes and they show no difference in radiance. Therefore I have disproved your claim. If your claim was that only north pole and equator have different radiance then I would need go to the north pole and equator to disprove your claim, but that was not your claim.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 14, 2009, 12:23:51 AM »
For example I did at least when used in Finland.

So when you were in Finland you confirmed that it receives exactly the same amount of radiance as the equator and North Pole?  ???

The equation states that radiance does not change with latitude. Are you saying that it really does and that equation is wrong but it just randomly happened to produce the right result?

I also proved that if earth were flat people in the equator would be pretty much frying alive right now since radiance in there would be so high.

Quote
If you are standing on that red spot and want to measure radiance from the sun you project a plane 90 degree from the direction of the sun and measure suns radiation hitting that plane. As you can see from the picture the amount of sunlight hitting that plane is the same amount if you are on the equator or in the northpole.

And thanks again for ignoring rest of my evidence.

When the sun is at an angle to the observer the observer receives less light and radiance, which is why different parts of the earth are warmer than others. When the sun is directly overhead the amount of incoming light and radiance surrounds the observer, which is why it's haotter at the equator than at any other area.

What are you babling about? I just told you that different temperatures are caused by different intensity and not different radiance. I also explained what the difference between them was but you seem not to have understood that. If you would replace every word "radiance" with word "intensity" on that sentence then it would be correct. You are talking about intensity but calling it radiance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance

Quote
Radiance is often, confusingly, called intensity in other areas of study, especially heat transfer, astrophysics and astronomy. Intensity has many other meanings in physics, with the most common being power per unit area. The distinction lies in the area rather than the subtended angle of the observer, and relative area of the source.







4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 13, 2009, 08:48:38 AM »
Quote
If the equation is true then there is no difference in radiance between equator and Finland. If you are claiming there is a large difference then you are also claiming that that experimentally verifiable equation is not true.

Who verified that equation?
For example I did at least when used in Finland.

None can doubt that the North Pole receives less light and radiance than the Equator. Whenever a light source is shining in at an angle, the destination is receiving less light.



When sunlight shines from overhead (on left), one square foot of sunlight falls on one square foot of ground. When it shines at a shallow angle (on right), each square foot of sunlight spreads out over many feet of ground.

Yes intensity is lover not radiance.



If you are standing on that red spot and want to measure radiance from the sun you project a plane 90 degree from the direction of the sun and measure suns radiation hitting that plane. As you can see from the picture the amount of sunlight hitting that plane is the same amount if you are on the equator or in the northpole.

And thanks again for ignoring rest of my evidence.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Circumnavigating antarctica
« on: April 13, 2009, 08:18:09 AM »

A link to such agencies would be useful. With details of journey times and boats empleyed. Perhaps.

http://www.condorjourneys-adventures.com/antarctica_cruise5.asp

6
Christ, where to begin with you...

Scientists used to think that light travelled through an aether, that the Universe was in a steady, everlasting state, that the atom was the smallest conceivable unit of matter, that light behaved only as a wave and electrons only as particles, and that any two events simultaneous to one observer would also be simulatenous to any other observer.

If that's not enough, here is an Albert Einstein quote from 1934:

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."

Yes but scientist usually change their views only after they got some evidence contrary to previous theory. For example earth looks like a sphere so scientist assume it is. Bendy light can make a flat earth look like a sphere, but until we get some evidence of bendy light from outside the FE theory there is no reason to assume that light bends upwards.

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Circumnavigating antarctica
« on: April 13, 2009, 07:45:58 AM »
Some travel agencies provide trips around the antarctic on a boat. How is this explained in the FET ? They can't circumnavigate around the entire outer rim of the earth because it would require the boat going constantly 200 mph.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 13, 2009, 02:53:49 AM »
Quote
Are you saying that the equation for radiance is not true?

What does an equation have to do with proof?

If the equation is true then there is no difference in radiance between equator and Finland. If you are claiming there is a large difference then you are also claiming that that experimentally verifiable equation is not true.

And thank you for dismissing the other evidence I provided for you.

By the way I have personally tested that Panasonic BP-376634 rated to produce 5,5 V and 33mA in radiance of 1000W/m^2 produces just that in direct sunlight here in Finland. If radiance in Finland is 1000W/m^2 then the radiance in equator would be about 4000W/m^2 in FE which would be lethal. Are you saying that staying in direct sunlight for more than about five minutes in equator is lethal?

And here is proof that the BP-376634 solar panel is rated to produce the same amount of power in Australia much closer to equator.
http://www.araa.asn.au/acra/acra2003/papers/34.pdf

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 13, 2009, 02:25:25 AM »
Quote
Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.

Are you saying that the equation for radiance is not true?

And again for example solar panels produce the same amount energy in Finland and in the equator when pointed directly to the sun.
The power output of solar panel is dependent on radiance.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 13, 2009, 12:22:37 AM »
You do not seem to know what radiance means. It is colder in Finland because the intesity of solar radiation per m^2 is lover in Finland than in equator this is same both in the FE and RE. But radiance and intensity are not the same thing.
If FET were true radiance in Finland should be about one quarter that of the equator but it is not.

So I repeat my point FET predicts that radiance should be lot lover in Finland than in equator and RET predicts that it should not be.
Neither RET or FET predicts that it should be just as warm in Finland as in the equator.

From the Wiki: "Radiance and spectral radiance are radiometric measures that describe the amount of light that passes through or is emitted from a particular area, and falls within a given solid angle in a specified direction."

You did not understand this part:"and falls within a given solid angle in a specified direction."

More light = More heat.

More light/area of ground = more heat= intensity not radiance. For example if you have radiance of 1kW/m^2 and you have a plane at 45 degree angle to the source of light the intensity on that plane is only 0.5kW/m^2.

What kind of data do you have demonstrating that Finland receives the same intensity or radiance of light as the equator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation#Calculation

And for example solar panels produce the same amount energy in Finland and in the equator when pointed directly to the sun.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radiance of the sun
« on: April 12, 2009, 01:12:23 PM »
The radiance is about the same as in the equator just like RET predicts.

Wrong. It's hotter on the equator than it is in Finland.


You do not seem to know what radiance means. It is colder in Finland because the intesity of solar radiation per m^2 is lover in Finland than in equator this is same both in the FE and RE. But radiance and intensity are not the same thing.
If FET were true radiance in Finland should be about one quarter that of the equator but it is not.

So I repeat my point FET predicts that radiance should be lot lover in Finland than in equator and RET predicts that it should not be.
Neither RET or FET predicts that it should be just as warm in Finland as in the equator.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Radiance of the sun
« on: April 12, 2009, 10:02:34 AM »
If height of sun is 3000 miles and I live in Finland from where the distance to equator is about 4500 miles. This makes the distance between sun and my current location about 5600 miles. The radiance of the sun on equator, 3000 miles from the sun, is about 1kW/m^2 so since the distance between sun an my current location is about double of that then the radiance should be about 0.25kW/m^2 however this is not the case. The radiance is about the same as in the equator just like RET predicts. How is this explained in the FET ?

13
No it does not. It only has one called fusion power and that is not unexplained unlike the mysterious powersource of the FE-sun.

Which is supposedly happening in billions of stars all over the Universe, yet has never been shown to work.

With your logic it is easier to believe that Barack Obama can fly than Moller aerospace has made 10 working flying cars costing only 100000$.

14
Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion the is the powersource of the sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.

No. FET requires only one manifestation of an unverified process; RET requires billions. Which is the simpler theory?

Did I say I was talking only about RET-sun?

Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion is the powersource of the FET-sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.


The biggest mistake you are making is that you are thinking that RET and sustainable fusion power are a same thing which they are not.
Fusion power could just as well be powering the FET-sun and your mystical power source could just as well be powering the billions of stars in the RE-theory.

15
FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

FET has one source of unexplained energy, RET has billions upon billions. Which is the simpler theory?

No it does not. It only has one called fusion power and that is not unexplained unlike the mysterious powersource of the FE-sun.

BTW. FET have a lot more unexplained phenomenons than RE.

No chemical reaction could match the power output of the sun for even thousands of years.
Edit. Btw. how is sun powered then in the FET?

My personal theory is that it has a mechanism by which it converts matter completely into energy.

Have there been a single experiment on earth that has replicated this phenomenon longer than duration of a fusion bomb explosion? If not wouldn't it be more logical to believe that fusion the is the powersource of the sun rather than some unexplained phenomenon that we have no proof of.


16
Yes, one circumstance that has nothing at all to do with the conditions present in the core of the sun.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point that nobody has ever shown protium nuclear fusion to be a sustainable source of energy.

Since an H-bomb is not designed for sustained fusion, I rather doubt it.

Which is exactly why they are inadequate as a demonstration of sustainable energy from fusion.

Im surpised RoboSteve is still doing this considering hes a RE

Most of the FE:rs probably are.

17
My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

Good thing the Flat Earth isn't millions of years old.

No chemical reaction could match the power output of the sun for even thousands of years.
Edit. Btw. how is sun powered then in the FET?

18
My point is that lab conditions will never match the same conditions in the core of stars, therefore sustaining fusion under lab conditions will not prove or disprove the viability of nuclear fusion within the cored of stars.

But at least it would prove the process to be viable at least in one circumstance, which is more than RET can say for itself at the moment.

FE is not anymore viable. FE also requires fusion power to explain the power output of the sun. No chemical reaction could provide that much energy for millions of years.

19
Quote
No it hasn't.

A number of people on this forum have tried to view far off objects with a telescope and have failed to restore it.

No they haven't. They used binoculars to try to restore it despite Rowbotham instructing that it required a high powered telescope.

That argument was also discussed in the other thread. But you chose to ignore it.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26936.msg631699#msg631699

20
Here is what Rowbotham claims to have seen through his opera glass not through his telescope.
As you can see the effect is much stronger that we can see from our images. And no you can't use the fact we did not use a telescope as an reason to ignore this evidence because Rowbotham did not use a telescope either when he drew these images. He used an opera glass with similar magnification to our binoculars. In the telescope images Rowbotham drew the effect is even stronger but I am not using them as proof.

With operaglassWithout operaglass

21
When you guys manage to follow the instructions and use a high end telescope for the experiment we can talk. As it is now you're using a pair of binoculars which seems to enlarge the rig by maybe a factor of two. Entirely unacceptable for comparison against the accounts in the literature.
You just keep ignoring my point. In addition to a telescope literature also talks about an opera glass that had lover magnification than the 7x binoculars used in this test. How is that an unacceptable comparison?


 

22


What's "wrong" is that any differences in ratios are explained away as 'experimental error'.

Anyone can clearly see that when the rig in those images is magnified more area can be seen at the bottom of the rig.

Yeah you can see one pixel more, hardly something that "anyone can see". Are you claiming that you can measure the height of that rig more accurately than 0,5 pixels ? If not it can be not be used as an proof of the effect that rowbotham claimed exist. If you think that it is as valid proof then you need read more. Start with some book that describes scientific method. This test provided no proof of the existence of the perspective effect but it proved that if it exist it is much smaller than rowbothan described.
And again you failed to respond to my other point.

23
Quote
You are right that would support rowbothans theory, if the difference did not fit within error margin.

Yeah right, experimental error.  ::)

Feel free to point out what is wrong with the calculations below. If you fail to do so you lose. Not that you haven't lost already since you ignored my point about rowbotham seeing the effect on operaglass when we can't see it on higher quality binoculars.



I measured the width and the height of the oil rig in the two photos.

I attributed an error to all of my measutrements of +/- one pixel.

Within experimental error the height:width ratio was the same in both pictures (see below).

So from a proper, scientific viewpoint there was no recovery of height with magnification.

If anyone wants to ignore the experimental error, please go ahead.

But that would be un-scientific, anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific.

----------------------------------



Zoomed out

Height (H1) = (30 +/- 1) mm (where 1 mm is the width of one pixel)
Width (W1) = (58 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H1 = 1/30 = 3.33%
Fractional error in W1 = 1/58 = 1.72%

H1/W1 = 0.517

Fractional error in H1/W1 (FE1) = 3.33% + 1.72% = 5.06%   

Zoomed in

Height (H2) = (83 +/- 1) mm
Width (W2) = (155 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H2 = 1/83 = 1.20%
Fractional error in W2 = 1/155 = 0.65%

H2/W2 = 0.535

Fractional error in H2/W2 (FE2) = 1.20% + 0.65% = 1.85%

Comparing the two pictures

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.535 / 0.517 = 1.0353

Fractional error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = FE1 + FE2 = 5.06% + 1.85% = 6.91%

Actual error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 6.91% x 1.035 = 0.0715

Conclusion

The shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.

(Given that: 1.0353 - 0.0715 = 0.9638; and 0.9638 < 1.0000)

24
Quote

What makes you think that this image proves that the size ratio of the rig remained unchanged? It actually supports the notion that magnification reveals the base.

34/48 > 12/18

You lose.

Edit.
You are right that would support rowbothans theory, if the difference did not fit within error margin. However rowbotham claimed that he did also see effect on operaglass and yet we did not see that effect so clearly with bicolulars which proves that rowbotham was lying.

Quote
What was wrong? I did not imply that that modern binoculars are better quality that rowbothans telescope. I only said that its main lens was the same size as modern binoculars and so it would have had similar resolution to modern binoculars or modern telescope of the same size.

How do you know the size of Rowbotham's main lens to make that assessment? While he doesn't specify a grade, Rowbotham tells us that he's using a high grade Newtonian, which doesn't use a lens at all.

Read more.

Where does he say that he is using a newtonian telescope? The size of the mirror on an newtonian telescope determines resolution just like the size of the lens in a binocular.
And besides rowbotham claims to have seen the effect with operaglass when we can't see the same effect on higher resolution binoculars.

I also copy pasted some calculations below. Feel free to point out what is wrong with them.


I measured the width and the height of the oil rig in the two photos.

I attributed an error to all of my measutrements of +/- one pixel.

Within experimental error the height:width ratio was the same in both pictures (see below).

So from a proper, scientific viewpoint there was no recovery of height with magnification.

If anyone wants to ignore the experimental error, please go ahead.

But that would be un-scientific, anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific.

----------------------------------



Zoomed out

Height (H1) = (30 +/- 1) mm (where 1 mm is the width of one pixel)
Width (W1) = (58 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H1 = 1/30 = 3.33%
Fractional error in W1 = 1/58 = 1.72%

H1/W1 = 0.517

Fractional error in H1/W1 (FE1) = 3.33% + 1.72% = 5.06%   

Zoomed in

Height (H2) = (83 +/- 1) mm
Width (W2) = (155 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H2 = 1/83 = 1.20%
Fractional error in W2 = 1/155 = 0.65%

H2/W2 = 0.535

Fractional error in H2/W2 (FE2) = 1.20% + 0.65% = 1.85%

Comparing the two pictures

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.535 / 0.517 = 1.0353

Fractional error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = FE1 + FE2 = 5.06% + 1.85% = 6.91%

Actual error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 6.91% x 1.035 = 0.0715

Conclusion

The shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.

(Given that: 1.0353 - 0.0715 = 0.9638; and 0.9638 < 1.0000)

25
Quote
Some drawings made over one hundert years ago by couple of guys aren't valid proof. Do you for example have some photos that you can show us? I have photos that shows no such effect exist.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified

You used binoculars. The authors of the literature, including Samuel Birley Rowbotham who provides accounts of the same effect, used telescopes. Huge difference in methodologies.

How was rowbothams telescope better than binoculars used in this test? Did it have bigger main lens that governs the resolution of the telescope or binoculars?

Not to mention that with those low quality blow ups it's extremely hard to tell if anything from the base was revealed.

No it is not you can simply measure the width and height of the object.





Quote
And by the way your claim that a telescope that rowbothan used would restore more of the oil rig is not valid, since lenses of the telescopes in the 19th century were about the same size as modern binoculars and so the resolution would be about the same.

Wrong. Glass making and lens making were perfected in the 1700's, and telescopes were perfected in the 1800's. There's a reason why the 1800's are known as the golden age of telescopes.

1900's telescopes only advanced in terms of mechanization.

What was wrong? I did not imply that that modern binoculars are better quality that rowbothans telescope. I only said that its main lens was the same size as modern binoculars and so it would have had similar resolution to modern binoculars or modern telescope of the same size.
 

26
A ship disappearing below the horizon is proof for the RE. If you are going to explain that with some other phenomenon then you'll need to provide proof for that.

Please read the literature. Since it can be restored with a telescope, the sinking ship is actually a proof for the FE.

See the Lake Michigan Experiments.

Thomas Winship provides similar accounts in Zetetic Cosmogony.

Some drawings made over one hundert years ago by couple of guys aren't valid proof. Do you for example have some photos that you can show us? I have photos that shows no such effect exist.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23667.0


Naked eye

Comparison

Magnified


And by the way your claim that a telescope that rowbothan used would restore more of the oil rig is not valid, since lenses of the telescopes in the 19th century were about the same size as modern binoculars and so the resolution would be about the same.

27
What would you expect the photo to show if the world was a sphere 12,000 km wide? What would you expect it to show if it was a cube with edges 20,000 km long? What about if it was a dodecahedron 40,000km across, or a giant tulip 40 trillion lightyears across?

A person does not take a tape measure marked in meters, measure a bunch of objects less than 50 cm big, and then declare all the objects have no size as their ruler only allows them to determine the size of said objects to the nearest meter.

The only thing that can be inferred from a plane earth is that the earth exists as a plane. Any other shapes will have to be proven.

A ship disappearing below the horizon is proof for the RE. If you are going to explain that with some other phenomenon then you'll need to provide proof for that.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A little science experiment - round earth
« on: February 20, 2009, 12:57:52 AM »
How did you arrive at the tens of thousands of miles distant conclusion? 

The launch of the balloon was done at the break of dawn and the spotlight of the sun is at a minimum 12,500 miles wide depending on the time of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

29
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/falling_debris

It wasn't debris

Thanks for posting this article. That thread is now ended hehe.

We can continue to debate on other threads ;)

Yes the thread is ended and it is also the first time I have seem Tom Bishop to win a debate.

30
As many of you know, a colision between an american satelite and an russian satelite happened 800km above the surface of the Earth on February 10th, 2009. Well, in the past few days, some witnesses have seen and shot what it can be debris coming from that colision.

That comes from a french canadian website: http://lcn.canoe.ca/ (EDIT: sorry but the link before didn't seem to work when we clicked on it)

EDIT: Here is a video http://lcn.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/player/video.cgi?file=20090216-082308&alt=1

What makes you think that whatever that is in the video is a piece of satellite debris as opposed to one of the thousands of meteorites which hits the earth's atmosphere every day?

I actually saw a shooting star just the other night. Must have been another piece of satellite, right?

A large meteorite just happened to collide with earth's atmosphere right after two satellites collided?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6