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 - A.R. Wallace

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I would like to know
« on: July 04, 2011, 09:44:42 PM »
Oh.  You're killing me!

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I would like to know
« on: July 04, 2011, 09:24:02 PM »
Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I would like to know
« on: July 04, 2011, 09:05:29 PM »
Moonlight harmless?   What about lunacy and lunatics?

4
OK, I'll bite.   What are the proofs?  I'm willing to look at them.

I'm still waiting.......

5
Now I am starting to worry. Maybe you are not trolling, Maybe you are positively, honestly unaware of the difference between conservation of energy and inverse square law!

Sigh..... I hand it to you on a silver platter and just ask you to do the inverse square part - and you don't!  What more can I do?  Is the light at 8000 meters 1/1000000 of the light at 1m according to the inverse square law?  I'll wait for the answer.

As for the animation, I agree and have even stated as much, if you care to read my posts.  It was an attempt to to see how it might work.  It works well for north of the equator, poorly for the south.  I've already stated that.  ::)

Go actually DO something - then come talk to me.

6
Even during the equinox, the curved edge of the oval should have been straight in order to provide an accurate representation of the daylight pattern.

It would IF the map used in my animation is accurate.  I doubt it is.  All these FE maps, pretty as they are, are based on a RE model then projected on a disc.  The real FE should be somewhat different to correspond to observed sunrise/sunset times, distances and other phenomena.

7
I'll give you an example with a very tight beam - a laser.
Suppose you have a very bright laser with a beam diameter of 3mm.  You measure the radiated power at 1m and find it is 1W.  Now you shine that laser at a target 8Km away (5 miles) and the spot on the target is 3m across.  Not the tightest laser beam, but OK.

The beam now covers a surface area 1,000,000 times larger than it did at 1m. Area = πr2  The total energy is the same (minus air absorption) just spread out over a much larger area.  If you took your power meter with a 3mm aperture (same as the beam's original diameter) you'd measure 1 microwatt of power.  Got it?  The beam now covers 1 million times more surface area so at any given point it is 1 million time less powerful.

Now that we know that - calculate the light power at your target using the inverse square law from 1m to 8000m.  Tell me if they are close to the same.

8
Here's a question - can you focus light without any sort of artificial or mechanical means?  Removing of lenses and blinders to the light source - what would it's impact be?

Well I can't.  But I can't create the sun, either.   At least not on that scale.  Don't forget reflectors - such as found on search lights.  Very tight beam there with a very shallow barrel and no lens.

9
The inverse square law applies to all cases in which light covers more area as it travels further away from the source, and that is all the cases where light travels in vacuum, air or another homogeneous substance because light is a wave.

This is just so WRONG.   I asked if you wanted examples and the math.  You did not answer.  Perhaps you don't want to know the answer?

10
Indeed. 

 We are getting way O.T. here, but that's the facts. Inverse square does not apply to a light that been focused.  I can  cite some real world examples and show you the math, if you want.  Or you can just look it up - it's mentioned a lot.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Dinosaurs?
« on: July 02, 2011, 05:25:06 PM »
Colonel Sanders is in on it too?    Say it ain't so!

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Dinosaurs?
« on: July 02, 2011, 12:59:58 PM »

13
Trig, I understand your argument, but you're wrong.

No, I'm not trolling.  Light is my trade.  Has been since the Johnson administration.
But don't feel bad, a lot of people in the business get it wrong, too.  Once they learn the inverse square rule they think it applies to everything, everywhere because no one ever tells them different.  It does not.  It applies only to a sphere radiating into 360 degrees.  (same with sound)  If it applied to projectors, flashlights, spotlights, lighthouses and lasers, they would be of little use.  The laser is best example of this. 

Stop and think about it, don't just fall back on what you "think" you know.

EDIT: Typos


14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Dinosaurs?
« on: July 02, 2011, 06:58:55 AM »
Crocadiles and Alligators are modern dinosaurs because they were found along side dinosaur bones... also the word dinosaur literally means terror lizard. Point proven.

Well..... yes.  Devastating proof there, Moon.

15
Thanks Markjo.  I had already looked up sunrise/sunset times for Quito and forgot to report back.
Although the times change a bit, the length does not vary much.  Not enough to worry about, anyway.  I does change much more near the tropics.

I will see if I can get my sunlight shape to fit this.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Dinosaurs?
« on: July 01, 2011, 08:07:55 PM »
But birds do . ;)

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Dinosaurs?
« on: July 01, 2011, 07:01:38 PM »
Just how smart did the dinos need to be to cross the oceans?

The islands of the South Pacific are full of life that did not evolve there - the islands are too young.  And although some of these islands are 4000 - 5000 kilometers or more from the nearest continent they still have life that had to get there some how.  Some flew, some swam, but how did the others get there?

Dinos across the seas is not as far fetched as it sounds at first.

18
Good try, but the equator is getting more than 12 hours of daylight at the summer solstice and less than 12 hours of daylight at the winter solstice.  It should receive 12 hours of daylight every day of the year.

Actually I don't think it quite does.  The sun moves north and south of the equator, so there is some change in daylight hours, just not much.  We can look that up.
The main problem with my animation is that although it provides 24 hour of darkness in June down at the ice wall, it does not get anywhere near the long days in the southern summer.   I.E., it works well north of the equator, but not south of it.

Back to the drawing board.

As for a round looking sun having an oval beam, that is not all that hard.  Many PAR lights (think rock n roll lighting) have an oval beam but look round - the lens is round, the beam is not.  Also car headlights have a shaped beam bu appear round.  So the sun easily could, too.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?
« on: July 01, 2011, 01:54:23 PM »
It is impossible for the Sun to be a spotlight regardless if you can draw it out or not (which you cannot).

I read that in the other thread.  All I can say is that you don't know much about spotlights!   I just so happen to know them pretty well as they were my stock and trade for many years - my father's also.

I will freely admit, tho, that sun near the horizon does not look much like a spotlight.  Especially when seen from a few 1000 feet above the Earth.

20
OK, here is a link to the Flash animation.  Sorry I couldn't embed it here.   It works pretty well, give it a whirl.  See what mistakes you can find.
http://www.earthnotglobe.com/FE_sun.htm

21
OK, I made a nice animation of my "Oval Spotlight" that shows equal daylight at the equinox, more daylight in the north in June (including 24H arctic days) and more daylight in the south in December (24H ice wall days.)

Now I just gotta figure out how to embed a Flash file here.

EDIT:  No luck. The Flash tag and html tags don't seem to be turned on.  Oh well!

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: are these answers what you all truely believe?
« on: June 30, 2011, 10:37:26 AM »
Have a look at Berny_74's avatar.  He's been there!

My mother has been there too, but she takes those old fashioned film photos - yuck!  I'll ask her for some copies and try to scan and post here.  But don't hold your breath.

23
Thanks guys!  ;D

(Don't forget - newbie here also went to the Bedford level and posted his results)

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?
« on: June 30, 2011, 10:04:07 AM »
Oh, OK.  I'll see if I can work that out with a graphic.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Simple ways to know the earth is round
« on: June 30, 2011, 09:47:52 AM »

Other than being made out of reeds, how is that supposed to resemble a nest?

It's made of sticks and twigs and it floats. The sides are higher then the middle.

Now as a proud primate, I don't think no stinking dino could make such a pretty raft - but maybe they could build something that would float a long way.  Birds and wasps build nests, termites build mounds, beavers build damns.  Monkeys don't build much of anything, the little buggers - too busy stealing bananas.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 100 Proofs the Earth is flat disproved?
« on: June 30, 2011, 09:36:50 AM »
You know it may be your new avatar that scared him away.  :P  It's the same as mine, only it shows a lot more.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 100 Proofs the Earth is flat disproved?
« on: June 30, 2011, 09:12:50 AM »
OK, we can pop the balloon.   Let's see if the OP comes back.

28
Yea, I'm working on it!  Berny is already bugging me about it.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: why dont the ice caps melt?
« on: June 30, 2011, 09:10:01 AM »
I said it before and so have others.   The FE sun does not stay directly above the equator all year long.  It moves back and forth from tropic to tropic over the year.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: are these answers what you all truely believe?
« on: June 30, 2011, 08:45:47 AM »
Hmmm... let me see if I can find a silver platter to serve it up on.   Anything else, sir?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9