• 44 Replies
• 19104 Views
?

#### Ergonomicsky

• 57
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2009, 02:12:10 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.

Oh, so he has to travel to the equator and the north pole himself now with a solar panel in his suitcase? What the companies that produce the panels have to say about them cannot be trusted then (see: link he provided in one of his posts)?

Of course it's very easy to "win" an argument this way: asking for the kind of proof which you know the opponent can never gather, to then go: "See? Told you so! No proof! I win! Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!"

Look, say what you want, Bishop.
Jargo is right about his point and you have no counter-argument for it, other than trying to invalidate the evidence he has provided => your loss.

?

#### Paralyzed Night

• 198
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2009, 04:25:26 PM »
Quote
Are you saying that the equation for radiance is not true?

What does an equation have to do with proof?

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

Come on Tom.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42559
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2009, 06:43:08 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.

Since when is it necessary to verify every possible value of a variable to determine the accuracy of an equation?
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.

#### EnigmaZV

• 3471
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2009, 07:02:56 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.

Since when is it necessary to verify every possible value of a variable to determine the accuracy of an equation?

maybe a2 + b2 =/= c2 in all cases for a right triangle, I haven't tried it for every right triangle.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #34 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.

#### EnigmaZV

• 3471
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2009, 12:09:47 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.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

?

#### jargo

• 161
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #36 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.

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2009, 02:39:13 PM »
Remember that Einstein himself once said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts".

As for the solar panel thing, all you'd be doing is providing evidence to the bendy light FE camp as opposed to the Maxwell's equations are correct FE camp. Feel free to propose some experiments which can differentiate between bendy light FE and RET.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2009, 02:48:02 PM »
Feel free to propose some experiments which can differentiate between bendy light FE and RET.
I guess that at first you must propose some experiments to detect bendy light at all.
-
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.

?

#### Apathy King

• 29
• has nothing better to do
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2009, 09:47:15 AM »
Have you considered bendy light in your equations? If the light from the sun must bend outwards, then much what you would previously consider direct light would be spread out over a greater area, reducing the radiance.

Granted, there would still be more light near the equator, but I imagine the disparity would be far less than you predict.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2009, 09:53:44 AM »
I just wanted to suggest the same thing.

?

#### NTheGreat

• 1019
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2009, 10:09:02 AM »
An obvious experiment to detect bendy light is to shine a laser. Such a device works, in simple terms, by bouncing a beam of light back and forth between a mirror and a semi-transparent mirror, amplifying the beam at each pass. Under a bendy light model, the beam would be bent up in the laser, coming out of the device smeared upwards. In a RE model, it would come out as a straight beam.

And the Sun's just as bright at the poles as it is at the equator. You don't have to reset your camera every time you move North or South.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2009, 11:46:17 AM »
If you shine a laser in a horizontal or vertical direction, it will not bend.

?

#### Redingold

• 164
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #43 on: May 24, 2009, 08:24:26 AM »
This is a brilliant thread. It provides good, solid proof for a round Earth, and also illuminates the FEr's habit of ignoring any proof against them.

?

#### thegoviswatchingus

• 8
##### Re: Radiance of the sun
« Reply #44 on: May 24, 2009, 10:01:11 PM »
jargo = best debater here.

Since tom decided to leave here is an idea for his next "argument."

Bendy light is true because the sun emits a special kind of light that bends, significantly different than that of a laser pointer.
Therefore the earth is flat.