DIY Experiment: Function of the sun's movement through the sky w/r to time

They were valid arguments. In someway, I think we went over the top, I seem to remember inducing some kind of invisible neutron star metric in the Earths upper atmosphere to scramble what we see from outer space. Now I see we have moved onto torsion fields, so in some ways its coming back to Earth. Reminds me of the scene in Miracle on 34th street where santa calmly tells the air force colonel that he couldn't have seen his workshops at the arctic because they are invisible and the reindeer only fly on the 24th.

I like the idea of an elementary particle that has zero (or negative) mass but can still affect spacetime curvature. The upward movement of the Earth compresses those particles into a layer right above the atmosphere, similar to the bow shock effect.

That would be the photon or the graviton in the massless case. A massless particle is constrained to travel at the speed of light.

To paraphrase what you put so elegantly,
"throwing around the names of a couple of [physics concepts] isn't going to give you much currency."
Yellow card

As bowler said, all the examples I stated were all valid (if somewhat implausible) in that they were possibilities which would need detailed experimental investigation.  This is distinct from your efforts in making yourself sound smarter than everyone else on these forums, so while your thirst for revenge at being bitchslapped is understandable, I would suggest that it is a bit ill-advised.  Try again if you want with something a bit more substantiated.

Quote from: hyppolito on February 11, 2009, 08:46:28 PM

To paraphrase what you put so elegantly,
"throwing around the names of a couple of [physics concepts] isn't going to give you much currency."
Yellow card

As bowler said, all the examples I stated were all valid (if somewhat implausible)in that they were possibilities which would need detailed experimental investigation.   This is distinct from your efforts in making yourself sound smarter than everyone else on these forums, so while your thirst for revenge at being bitchslapped is understandable, I would suggest that it is a bit ill-advised.  Try again if you want with something a bit more substantiated.

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? 

While I appreciate your input, trig, your knee-jerk responses don't serve to 'expose my true troll-like nature' as much as your own ignorance.  The gradient of the local spacetime determines the force you experience as gravity - if such distortions are very localised (say, as some form of 'bow shock' above the surface which is compressed in some manner, say by a massive, relativistically accelerating body such as the flat Earth) then you would be able to see effects without being torn apart by spacetime distortions.

You are also wrong in your assertion that an analogy of a simple lens fixes the size of the Sun at all distances - that is very, very simple optics. My solution requires an extremely peculiar time-dependent distortion more akin to some kind of amorphous fluid lens which adjusts its properties in time (including the local refractive index and dispersive properties) to produce the desired effects.  This was why I made a comment about 'fine tuning' being a conceptual problem, but I suppose you missed that.

Now you are in the same class as Mr. Davis, who has been waiting for a while of free time to write his paper on aether, for the last year. Throwing every complex-sounding term at anyone who asks for something close to a model is just the last trick in the bag of the desperate.

You did not even start to explain why your solution is capable of solving simultaneously the three problems of keeping the apparent position, the apparent size and the brightness of the Sun and the Moon almost constant during the day.

I really would like to see any diagram showing any combination of masses that can shift light by more than 30 degrees through gravitational lensing and where none of them is a black hole. A trillion trillion of Earth size planets in just the right position, maybe?

Finally, you are resorting to name calling when asked to explain your ideas. Isn't that the true signature of a troll?

We were just having some fun.

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? 

Actually, no.  If you read what I said both in my own post and in response to trig all I have done is provide some alternative mechanisms which could, in principle, explain observed phenomena in an FET framework.  I have also said, repeatedly I might add, that these solutions require and extreme amount of 'fine-tuning' (at best) to make them work, which is undesirable in any physical theory.  I have also said that they are not plausible solutions, merely possible ones, that would require experimental observations to determine their validity.  Trig implied that I was offering some form of rigorous mathematical proof for FET, when I had already gone to great lengths to insist otherwise, so I pointed out his error in the hope of inspiring genuine debate, in the true spirit of these boards.

You did not even start to explain why your solution is capable of solving simultaneously the three problems of keeping the apparent position, the apparent size and the brightness of the Sun and the Moon almost constant during the day.

I really would like to see any diagram showing any combination of masses that can shift light by more than 30 degrees through gravitational lensing and where none of them is a black hole. A trillion trillion of Earth size planets in just the right position, maybe?

Finally, you are resorting to name calling when asked to explain your ideas. Isn't that the true signature of a troll?

I have stated previously that in order for the deformation of space-time to be a valid solution to the FE problem, you would need to somehow tie the metric above the surface to the mechanism responsible for accelerating the flat Earth, as well as introduce a large amount of 'fine tuning'.  I made no speculation about what that may be, nor did I suggest that it was a very likely solution (as I have said above, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that you are aware of that).

In the context of FET, one must consider all possibilities no matter how outlandish.  I was expecting some intelligent suggestions for experiments which could discount them one by one, but instead I got a post from you which betrayed your lack of both understanding and respect for proper debate.  I therefore decided to engage you at the level which you had set.  If you would prefer to avoid name calling, catfighting and general bitchiness then I suggest you keep your posts reasonable, intelligent and polite, your 'yellow card' one being neither.

You did not even start to explain why your solution is capable of solving simultaneously the three problems of keeping the apparent position, the apparent size and the brightness of the Sun and the Moon almost constant during the day.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

You did not even start to explain why your solution is capable of solving simultaneously the three problems of keeping the apparent position, the apparent size and the brightness of the Sun and the Moon almost constant during the day.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Tom Bishop has been slipping badly for some time, but this is the first time he has not been able to count to three. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham explain how to solve two of the problems, if you are not very demanding regarding his explanation about a halo around the Sun. But he does not even try to explain the third condition, the brightness of the Sun and Moon.

And also he does not even try to explain how the Moon has the same apparent size without any halo.

Of course, anyone with a telescope will tell you that the "halo around the Sun" idea is brain dead, but hey, we are talking "Rowbotham", not like we were talking science around here.

Tom Bishop has been slipping badly for some time, but this is the first time he has not been able to count to three. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham explain how to solve two of the problems, if you are not very demanding regarding his explanation about a halo around the Sun. But he does not even try to explain the third condition, the brightness of the Sun and Moon.

And also he does not even try to explain how the Moon has the same apparent size without any halo.

Of course, anyone with a telescope will tell you that the "halo around the Sun" idea is brain dead, but hey, we are talking "Rowbotham", not like we were talking science around here.

Rowbotham didn't say anything about any "halo." Please read the material.

Quote from: goldstein on February 14, 2009, 08:40:28 PM

Were my instructions not clear enough?

It would help if they were in english.

It would help if you stopped the useless bickering and explained, in your own words, the wisdom of Rowbotham for all of us to understand. The challenge is simple: show us that Rowbotham did really give a sound physical argument that permits a prediction of the apparent position of the Sun and Moon, their apparent size and brightness, for every hour of a typical day.

You know that the English used by Rowbotham guaranties that only a few will even read the first paragraph completely, and you are not even giving a chapter number. This makes most of us think not even you have bothered to read his works completely.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 14, 2009, 09:35:23 PM

Quote from: goldstein on February 14, 2009, 08:40:28 PM

Were my instructions not clear enough?

It would help if they were in english.

Что? Напишите, пожалуйста. Я не понимаю.

I can actually read that. I feel smug about doing so.

I have stated previously that in order for the deformation of space-time to be a valid solution to the FE problem, you would need to somehow tie the metric above the surface to the mechanism responsible for accelerating the flat Earth, as well as introduce a large amount of 'fine tuning'.  I made no speculation about what that may be, nor did I suggest that it was a very likely solution (as I have said above, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that you are aware of that).

In the context of FET, one must consider all possibilities no matter how outlandish.  I was expecting some intelligent suggestions for experiments which could discount them one by one, but instead I got a post from you which betrayed your lack of both understanding and respect for proper debate.  I therefore decided to engage you at the level which you had set.  If you would prefer to avoid name calling, catfighting and general bitchiness then I suggest you keep your posts reasonable, intelligent and polite, your 'yellow card' one being neither.

There is something very wrong with your approach: you are relying on a list of esoteric science to provide a strange and unknown solution to a simple problem of conservation of energy: the energy that comes from the Sun is dispersed proportionally to the inverse square of the distance to the observer. The length of the light's route from the Sun to the observer depends on the time of day in every model that FE theorists have ever proposed. Therefore you are looking at a problem of conservation of energy.

If you tell me which of the ideas you are throwing in the air do not conserve the principle of conservation of energy (or at least conservation of sum of energy and mass), I will help you test them and find a way to incorporate FE into them. But until you give us a reason that endeavor is even remotely probable, you are plowing the sea.

It would help if you stopped the useless bickering and explained, in your own words, the wisdom of Rowbotham for all of us to understand. The challenge is simple: show us that Rowbotham did really give a sound physical argument that permits a prediction of the apparent position of the Sun and Moon, their apparent size and brightness, for every hour of a typical day.

You know that the English used by Rowbotham guaranties that only a few will even read the first paragraph completely, and you are not even giving a chapter number. This makes most of us think not even you have bothered to read his works completely.

I've read the work, but it's apparent that you haven't. Please read the work if you wish to learn about the subject matter. It's not my job to spoon feed it to you.

If you're having trouble understanding it I suggest that you take a remedial English 1A class at your local community college. It's not my job to teach you basic reading comprehension skills, either.

Quote from: trig on February 14, 2009, 11:44:04 PM

It would help if you stopped the useless bickering and explained, in your own words, the wisdom of Rowbotham for all of us to understand. The challenge is simple: show us that Rowbotham did really give a sound physical argument that permits a prediction of the apparent position of the Sun and Moon, their apparent size and brightness, for every hour of a typical day.

You know that the English used by Rowbotham guaranties that only a few will even read the first paragraph completely, and you are not even giving a chapter number. This makes most of us think not even you have bothered to read his works completely.

I've read the work, but it's apparent that you haven't. Please read the work if you wish to learn about the subject matter. It's not my job to spoon feed it to you.

If you're having trouble understanding it I suggest that you take a remedial English 1A class at your local community college. It's not my job to teach you basic reading comprehension skills, either.

... says the man has has been endlessly found quoting what he has not even read in its entirety.

OK, lets see the exact quote:

IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater "glare," at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere.

So, I used the word "halo" and Rowbotham uses "glare" but the idea is the same and it is hopelessly wrong. You were presented with the challenge of showing us how Rowbotham (or anyone you like) can predict three things: the observed apparent size, apparent location and brightness of the Sun and Moon with any FE model you want. All you could come up with is that Rowbotham used the word "glare", not "halo", to try to explain the apparent size of the sun near dawn.

Now, please take the the English course you recommend and show me the place where Rowbotham even tries to explain the three things this discussion is about. Maybe others do not know how to count to three, but you are not showing that you are.

So, I used the word "halo" and Rowbotham uses "glare" but the idea is the same and it is hopelessly wrong.

Nope. A halo is not a glare. A glare is the magnification or projection of a light source through a medium. If you've ever seen a distant street lamp at night you will notice that its light appears many times its light appears than it should be at its distance. As the light passes to you it is enlarged and magnified by the medium it passes through.

The sun remains the same size as it recedes due to this known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.

The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than when it is overhead at noonday. This is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick horizontal atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp. The sun's intensity is so diluted when it is low in the sky that it is possible to look directly at it without squinting.

If you've ever seen a city at night you would know that distant light sources appear magnified from afar because they are shining though an atmospheric medium. The farther you move away from the source, the more medium you put between you, the more magnified the lights appears. As you move towards the source the magnified lights shrink in appearance. As you move away the lights grows in diameter again.

For example, here is a picture of an average bustling city at night. You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the orange lights in the background are about as big as the orange lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size in foreground and background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.

As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again. The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun. The natural shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effect of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere. This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.

Here's another example:

http://i39.tinypic.com/i2kche.jpg

No matter where the streetlight is, in the foreground, midground, or background, the size of the light remains consistent throughout the scene.

Quote

So, I used the word "halo" and Rowbotham uses "glare" but the idea is the same and it is hopelessly wrong.

Nope. A halo is not a glare. A glare is the magnification or projection of a light source through a medium.

Thank you, now you are wrong but seem sincerely trying to make your case.

Lets see the definition of glare:

Glare is difficulty seeing in the presence of bright light such as direct or reflected sunlight or artificial light such as car headlamps at night. Because of this, some cars include mirrors with automatic anti-glare functions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glare_(vision)

Notice how the word "magnification" is not mentioned? Maybe you can find a quote where "glare" is explained in terms of "magnification". I found about 20 definitions at http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+glare and none mentioned magnification.

And even then, you are not even trying to address the three simultaneous problems: position, size, brightness.

Neither the sun or the moon change size significantly in the sky. Myself and I would have thought many other people have done this at school assuming their school has suitable kit. I have also done it myself with the sun with an outstretched thumb. I wouldn't recommend this it hurts thought plenty of websites explain how to do it safely. Its also easily done with the moon, which subtends the same solid angle as the sun. Its a common illusion that things look smaller when the eye has no points of reference you can do this.

The apparent change of intensity of the sun is due to scattering of the suns light as it travels further through the atmosphere at night. In short the sun is so far away that small changes in our relative position have no real effect on its size. You can easily check this for yourself, just make sure you find out how to conduct the experiment safely first. The apparent loss in intensity is because when its low in the sky the suns light gets a lot more scattered, you can also see this as the sky changes colour scattering more than just blue light.

Notice how the word "magnification" is not mentioned? Maybe you can find a quote where "glare" is explained in terms of "magnification".

The fact that a glare magnifies light is obvious. Look at any glare and it's easy to see that the light is magnified.

Rowbotham tells us that at a distance a streetlight appears larger. This enlarging of light is known as glare.

And even then, you are not even trying to address the three simultaneous problems: position, size, brightness.

Size and brightness have already been addressed.

- The sun maintains its size because it is increasingly magnified as it recedes and puts more atmosphere between the sun and observer.

- The sun is not consistently bright throughout the day. In fact when the sun is near the horizon the sun is so dim and diluted in intensity by the atmosphere between the sun and observer that it is easy to look directly at the sun without squinting at all.

Neither the sun or the moon change size significantly in the sky.

ENAG never said that it did.

The fact that a glare magnifies light is obvious. Look at any glare and it's easy to see that the light is magnified.

It's also easy to see that the light becomes fuzzy and poorly defined. Yet the Sun and Moon don't blur out as they move towards the horizon.

It's also easy to see that the light becomes fuzzy and poorly defined. Yet the Sun and Moon don't blur out as they move towards the horizon.

Actually the sun is pretty fuzzy. The fuzzyness around the edges of a glare can be reduced with a polarized lens, but it won't reduce the diameter of the magnification upon the atmosphere.

Here's another example:

http://i39.tinypic.com/i2kche.jpg

No matter where the streetlight is, in the foreground, midground, or background, the size of the light remains consistent throughout the scene.

Tom, since when does the sun shine at night?  A better analogy would be looking at car headlights on a foggy morning.  I have personally witnessed such headlights on foggy mornings, and guess what?  Those headlights looked small far away and appeared to get bigger as they got closer.

Tom, since when does the sun shine at night?

Where did I say that it did?

A better analogy would be looking at car headlights on a foggy morning.  I have personally witnessed such headlights on foggy mornings, and guess what?  Those headlights looked small far away and appeared to get bigger as they got closer.

I've also seen headlights on a foggy highway morning. The glare from the headlights were a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see.

Quote

Tom, since when does the sun shine at night?

Where did I say that it did?

Then why did you use a night photograph to show your point?

Quote

A better analogy would be looking at car headlights on a foggy morning.  I have personally witnessed such headlights on foggy mornings, and guess what?  Those headlights looked small far away and appeared to get bigger as they got closer.

I've also seen headlights on a foggy highway morning. The glare from the headlights were a constant size down the highway as far as the eye could see.

Come on Tom, you know that photographs aren't evidence around here, especially overexposed, shaky ones that you didn't take yourself.  And the glare from the headlights that I witnessed were smaller farther away.

Then why did you use a night photograph to show your point?

Because glares happen at night as well as in the day, dumb shoe.

Come on Tom, you know that photographs aren't evidence around here, especially overexposed, shaky ones that you didn't take yourself. 

That's some pretty selective over exposure if it made those headlights all the way down the highway exactly the same size, no more, no less.

And the glare from the headlights that I witnessed were smaller farther away.

Looks like you remembered wrong then.

dumb shoe.

He said it!

Quote

Then why did you use a night photograph to show your point?

Because glares happen at night as well as in the day, dumb shoe.

And it's easier to find examples of light point burn-in in those shots too.

Quote

Come on Tom, you know that photographs aren't evidence around here, especially overexposed, shaky ones that you didn't take yourself.

That's some pretty selective over exposure if it made those headlights all the way down the highway exactly the same size, no more, no less.

That's also some pretty obvious motion blur and a fairly low resolution camera.  More than likely a frame grab from a video camera.  Notice how the street lights on the right side show motion blur.  Not a very good image to make your point.

Quote

And the glare from the headlights that I witnessed were smaller farther away.

Looks like you remembered wrong then.

Nope, I made it a special point to carefully watch them on several occasions.  The headlights were definitely smaller when farther away.

Since you like night shots, take a look at this one.  Notice how the street lamps in the distance look smaller than the ones closer.