erm horizon?

So you won't mind if I post the pics of me and your mum, since, ya know, it don't proof nothin'?

I doubt it. Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

Protip: Air is a fluid.

Quote from: liedetector on April 23, 2009, 11:06:43 AM

I doubt it. Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

Protip: Air is a fluid.

Protip: The Earth is round.

erm.

That word again, What is an erm.

Quote from: Robosteve on April 23, 2009, 05:03:32 PM

Quote from: liedetector on April 23, 2009, 11:06:43 AM

I doubt it. Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

Protip: Air is a fluid.

Protip: The Earth is round.

Protip: The earth is flat.

Easy, isnt it?

sigh im such a failure.. i couldnt resist comin back


anyways.. so the atmosphere is thinner when u get higher..
obviously u know why light "bends" in liquids or prisms ect.. altho judgin by this belief of dense atmosphere causin light to bend like this, im not too sure.. so ill put it simply, if u imagine light as a line with a width, when the bottom enters it slows alittle causin it to turn..

so hypothetically speakin..
when light, for example the moon (low), comes through the atmosphere at an angle it would bend downwards, makin the moon appear higher in the sky than it actually is.. so not only would a low moon be impossible with bendy light (if a moon did go this low in the sky it wouldnt be visible, like the horizon.. and when it did become visible it would look much higher than it is ie. it appears half way up the sky), but also if u can see it as it gets lower it would distort from its usual spherical shape..


o and also there wouldnt be an horizon if ur lookin straight along the same density of atmosphere anways.. as the light wouldnt change speed and "bend"..


ty plz (..physics101 u love it really, 1337speak ftw)

[quote author=Henrythecamel link=topic=28502.msg683564#msg683564 date=124050955


im definetely not an expert on this subject but from what i remember from school.. the light only experiences "bendin" (refraction?.. i got bad memory) when in enters or exits a fluid..
as we r in the atmosphere and the stuff over the horizon is in the same atmosphere this shouldnt happen?

[/quote]

Light does bend, even in round earth theory.

The proof is mirages. Both superior and inferior are caused by bendy light.

Light does bend, even in round earth theory.

The proof is mirages. Both superior and inferior are caused by bendy light.

i think u missed the point there somewhat..

eitherway mirages r caused by heat bendin light not atmosphere, which obviously he wasnt talkin about cause there would have to be these mirages all over the "flat earth" for there to be an horizon..
btw dont bastardise science by pickin the bits u like and ignorin the actual application, its not cool.. ^^

Quote from: A Physicist on April 23, 2009, 05:08:22 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 23, 2009, 05:03:32 PM

Quote from: liedetector on April 23, 2009, 11:06:43 AM

I doubt it. Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

Protip: Air is a fluid.

Protip: The Earth is round.

Protip: The earth is flat.

Easy, isnt it?

And just as convincing.   

Quote from: spanner34.5 on April 24, 2009, 04:42:15 AM

Light does bend, even in round earth theory.

The proof is mirages. Both superior and inferior are caused by bendy light.

i think u missed the point there somewhat..

eitherway mirages r caused by heat bendin light not atmosphere, which obviously he wasnt talkin about cause there would have to be these mirages all over the "flat earth" for there to be an horizon..
btw dont bastardise science by pickin the bits u like and ignorin the actual application, its not cool.. ^^

Heat does not bend light, if you think it does, please supply evidence.

Quote from: Henrythecamel on April 24, 2009, 04:57:42 AM

Quote from: spanner34.5 on April 24, 2009, 04:42:15 AM

Light does bend, even in round earth theory.

The proof is mirages. Both superior and inferior are caused by bendy light.

i think u missed the point there somewhat..

eitherway mirages r caused by heat bendin light not atmosphere, which obviously he wasnt talkin about cause there would have to be these mirages all over the "flat earth" for there to be an horizon..
btw dont bastardise science by pickin the bits u like and ignorin the actual application, its not cool.. ^^

Heat does not bend light, if you think it does, please supply evidence.

Heat does not directly bend light, but it does cause air to expand and rise.  As the heated air expands and rises, cooler air sinks to take it's place.  These convection currents can sometimes cause turbulence visible in the form of "heat shimmers" as light passes alternately between warmer, less dense air and cooler, more dense air. 

Wow. Just wow.

Having trouble?

Quote from: liedetector on April 23, 2009, 11:00:45 AM

Wow. Just wow.

Having trouble?

I certainly am having trouble. This is very difficult to read.

Protip: Air is a fluid.

Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

dp/dy = ρg (from memory; it's been a while since I've studied fluid mechanics so I'd appreciate it if somebody could verify this one)
pV = nRT

The rest follows by some fairly straightforward mathematics, if we assume temperature to be constant (not an unreasonable postulate for this demonstration, as the variation in temperature as one ascends will only change the properties of the gradient, not remove it altogether).

Quote from: liedetector on April 24, 2009, 08:21:33 AM

Unless you can show how fluid mechanics solves the problem (namely "Atmosphere is a gradient.") then you're wasting time.

dp/dy = ρg (from memory; it's been a while since I've studied fluid mechanics so I'd appreciate it if somebody could verify this one)
pV = nRT

The rest follows by some fairly straightforward mathematics, if we assume temperature to be constant (not an unreasonable postulate for this demonstration, as the variation in temperature as one ascends will only change the properties of the gradient, not remove it altogether).

Of course g = a_UA in that first equation.  Habits can be hard to break.

EDIT:  Also, that first formula does appear to be the applicable equation.  Although it's been a long time since I've done any physics really.

Of course g = a_UA in that first equation.  Habits can be hard to break.

I'm using the general form of the equation for familiarity, and because there's really no difference thanks to the Equivalence Principle. But yes, you are correct of course.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on April 24, 2009, 11:00:41 AM

Of course g = a_UA in that first equation.  Habits can be hard to break.

I'm using the general form of the equation for familiarity, and because there's really no difference thanks to the Equivalence Principle. But yes, you are correct of course.

hmm you've just cited a couple of fluid mechanics equations.

How does that show that the atmosphere is a gradient?

hmm you've just cited a couple of fluid mechanics equations.

How does that show that the atmosphere is a gradient?

The first equation obviously implies that as one ascends, the air pressure gets lower. The second equation relates this reduction in pressure to a proportionate reduction in density. Thus, the density of the air is lower at altitude than at ground level. A quantitative analysis is slightly more complex, as the reduction in density must be taken account of in the first equation.

The first equation obviously implies that as one ascends, the air pressure gets lower.

OK.

The second equation relates this reduction in pressure to a proportionate reduction in density.

OK.

And how does this show the atmosphere is a gradient capable of permitting the moon to be observed yet preventing observation of objects on earths surface greater than 6 miles away (ie beyond the horizon)?

And how does this show the atmosphere is a gradient capable of permitting the moon to be observed yet preventing observation of objects on earths surface greater than 6 miles away (ie beyond the horizon)?

Gas molecules and dust particles in the air interfere with the transmission of electromagnetic radiation. Obviously, the more of such particles there are, the less light will be permitted through.

Quote from: roadhumper on April 25, 2009, 06:09:23 AM

And how does this show the atmosphere is a gradient capable of permitting the moon to be observed yet preventing observation of objects on earths surface greater than 6 miles away (ie beyond the horizon)?

Gas molecules and dust particles in the air interfere with the transmission of electromagnetic radiation. Obviously, the more of such particles there are, the less light will be permitted through.

Molecules block light?! Gosh! Seems like thats got little to do with fluid mechanics. Nice diversion though.

Anyway, how is it that the sun (far away) or moon (far away) can be observed rising from the horizon (the same horizon which is blocking light from beyond 6 miles away)

Perhaps (under your flat earth theory) the sun and moon are only 6 miles away?

Molecules block light?! Gosh! Seems like thats got little to do with fluid mechanics. Nice diversion though.

Fluid mechanics explains the gradient property, as requested.

Anyway, how is it that the sun (far away) or moon (far away) can be observed rising from the horizon (the same horizon which is blocking light from beyond 6 miles away)

Perhaps (under your flat earth theory) the sun and moon are only 6 miles away?

This is explained by the hypothesis that light rays curve upwards, so they aren't travelling through the lower part of the atmosphere for that distance. They appear red because of the increased quantity of air through which the light must pass, however.

This is explained by the hypothesis that light rays curve upwards, so they aren't travelling through the lower part of the atmosphere for that distance.

LOL. Light rays curve upwards?! I've never read so much ill informed crap!

But feel free to illustrate this point, showing how the light from the sun (or moon) when rising somehow avoids travelling through the air which you claim prevents us seeing beyond the horizon.

LOL. Light rays curve upwards?! I've never read so much ill informed crap!

Do you have any proof that light rays do not curve?

But feel free to illustrate this point, showing how the light from the sun (or moon) when rising somehow avoids travelling through the air which you claim prevents us seeing beyond the horizon.

This is a rather crude drawing I just cobbled together in Inkscape, but it should get the point across:

This is a rather crude drawing I just cobbled together in Inkscape, but it should get the point across:

Sorry, I need to see the path of light from the sun, the path of light from an object on the horizon, the path of light from an object infront of the horizon, and the path of light of an object beyond the horizon.

Your diagram needs to show how the light from the sun passes through less atmosphere than the object beyond the horizon, since your proposal is that the atmospheric "gradient" blocks observation of objects beyond the horizon.

Good luck.

Sorry, I need to see the path of light from the sun, the path of light from an object on the horizon, the path of light from an object infront of the horizon, and the path of light of an object beyond the horizon.

Your diagram needs to show how the light from the sun passes through less atmosphere than the object beyond the horizon, since your proposal is that the atmospheric "gradient" blocks observation of objects beyond the horizon.

Good luck.

Well, the EA theory (that which is still in development and details the upward curvature of light) provides an alternative explanation for the horizon. When objects are too far away, there is no appropriately curved path from the object to the observer that does not pass through the solid surface of the Earth, and therefore it cannot be seen. The horizon is the point at which the surface of the Earth is tangent to the light ray.

the light only experiences "bendin" (refraction?.. i got bad memory) when in enters or exits a fluid..

Please retake a physics class. It will help you understand the way the universe works.

When objects are too far away, there is no appropriately curved path from the object to the observer that does not pass through the solid surface of the Earth, and therefore it cannot be seen.

Aside from not understanding physics (there's no such thing as EA Theory, I guess you just made it up) you're not really explaining why the sun and moon, which are beyond the horizon, can be seen.

Aside from not understanding physics (there's no such thing as EA Theory, I guess you just made it up) you're not really explaining why the sun and moon, which are beyond the horizon, can be seen.

Because a curved path with sufficient upward concavity does exist between the Sun and Moon and a faraway observer.