# Radiance of the sun

• 44 Replies
• 19109 Views
?

#### jargo

• 161
##### 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 ?

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2009, 12:17:26 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.

?

#### bennjerry

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2009, 12:58:01 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.

Your not the most radiant bulb in the box are you?

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #3 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.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 01:26:15 PM by jargo »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2009, 03:05:08 PM »
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."

More light = More heat.

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

?

#### bennjerry

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2009, 03:43:02 PM »
More light = More heat.

Try thinking about how the sunlight strikes the earth. I know it hurts, but you'll need to think in terms of a spherical earth.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2009, 04:32:44 PM »
What kind of data do you have demonstrating that Finland receives the same intensity or radiance of light as the equator?

?

#### bennjerry

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2009, 04:38:56 PM »
What kind of data do you have demonstrating that Finland receives the same intensity or radiance of light as the equator?

A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

#### Parsifal

• Official Member
• 36118
• Bendy Light specialist
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2009, 05:04:16 PM »
A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

This is only valid evidence if you can show that the Sun has constant intensity per unit surface area.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

#### bennjerry

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2009, 05:14:15 PM »
A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

This is only valid evidence if you can show that the Sun has constant intensity per unit surface area.

Nope, there's no conditions attached to the indicator. A principle of FE theory is that the sun moves across the earth, moving to and then away from any given point. This would cause the observable size of the sun, and the radiance from the sun, to diminish.

#### Parsifal

• Official Member
• 36118
• Bendy Light specialist
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2009, 05:15:31 PM »
Nope, there's no conditions attached to the indicator. A principle of FE theory is that the sun moves across the earth, moving to and then away from any given point. This would cause the observable size of the sun, and the radiance from the sun, to diminish.

Oh, I see what you mean. Fair point, but irrelevant in this thread.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

#### bennjerry

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2009, 05:26:00 PM »
Nope, there's no conditions attached to the indicator. A principle of FE theory is that the sun moves across the earth, moving to and then away from any given point. This would cause the observable size of the sun, and the radiance from the sun, to diminish.

Oh, I see what you mean. Fair point, but irrelevant in this thread.

Not really, since its evidence against the earth being flat.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2009, 05:26:38 PM »
Quote
A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 02:22:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### bennjerry

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2009, 05:35:34 PM »
A blunt indicator is the fact that the sun does not change significantly in radius as observed from the earth. You can test this yourself.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Earth not a globe is riddled with errors. Ask any of your FE friends here. However, feel free to propose your own tests instead.

Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.

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

The equation for radiance has no latitude variable. Hence there is no difference (all other things being equal) between Finland and the equator.

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #14 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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2009, 02:22:15 AM »
Quote
Please provide evidence that Finland receives the same amount of radiance as the equator.

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 02:33:01 AM by jargo »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2009, 02:42:47 AM »
Quote
Are you saying that the equation for radiance is not true?

What does an equation have to do with proof?

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #18 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
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 04:22:44 AM by jargo »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2009, 08:38:16 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?

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.

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #20 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.

?

#### Taurondir

##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2009, 04:49:19 PM »
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?

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.

My god these people are demented. Sorry, no, they aren't demented, they lost the plot about this being a debate for fun, and are now just screwing with people.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm

No way on hell light zones/day night cycle on a FE can be made to match ones on a RE from a spotlight sun 32 miles across.
Nice try. Oh my goodness, I forgot about "bendy light". If physics dont fit, invent some.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2009, 05:22:56 PM »
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?

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 hotter at the equator than at any other area.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42559
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2009, 06:27:25 PM »
And thanks again for ignoring rest of my evidence.

You're new here aren't you?  You will soon learn that there is no bit of undeniable evidence that Tom can't deny.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #24 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.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 03:30:53 AM by jargo »

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2009, 09:50:02 AM »
Quote
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?

Did you collect data to prove that that equation holds true at every latitude? Who did?

?

#### Ergonomicsky

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2009, 11:58:50 AM »
Quote
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?

Did you collect data to prove that that equation holds true at every latitude? Who did?

Why, yes he did. Right here:

Quote from: jargo
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.

And here as well:

Quote from: jargo
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

You just chose to ignore it, as you usually do.

Any explanations for the data jargo has showed you, other then: "Where's the data? Where's your proof?"
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 12:14:35 PM by Ergonomicsky »

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2009, 12:01:18 PM »
Quote
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?

Did you collect data to prove that that equation holds true at every latitude? Who did?
Where is your data that shows equation to be wrong?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17953
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2009, 01:19:28 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 01:22:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2009, 01:42:43 PM »
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.
And we don't see the part where you take the solar panel to the equator or to the north pole to measure output.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 02:45:46 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.