The Lit Portion of the Earth Disagrees with FE.

The Moon causes solar eclipses, and no, it would not.

Please provide support for your outlandish theory of why the back of the sun wouldn't be seen in your mirror.


I think I have it now antisun-solar eclipse; earth- lunar eclipse.

Wait I mean antimoon- lunar eclipse; moon solar eclipse..... It makes so much sense.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 29, 2009, 11:48:14 AM

Then why no duplicate images of the stars and the moon?

The same reason there are no observed duplicate images of the Sun, which I have still failed to provide a logical explanation for.

Fix'd

Please provide support for your outlandish theory of why the back of the sun wouldn't be seen in your mirror.

As I have stated several times in this thread, the light from the sky mirror is only focused onto the Ice Wall, and then only for objects at the second focus in the sky. If the light from the mirror is not focused, it won't appear as anything but faint background noise.

Yes, and that observation is exactly what the Ice Wall hypothesis would predict. About half of it would be lit directly by the Sun, with the other half being lit by the sky mirror. Because the sky mirror focuses the light onto Earth, the Sun would appear to be in the sky - and, thanks to bendy light, it could appear quite close to the horizon, too, if the sky mirror were large enough.

It'd be more than half, because the sun can only light up a circular area with a diameter equaling the distance between the poles.  Draw a circle, then draw a circle within it with a diameter equal to the former's radius.  You'll see what I mean.

It'd be more than half, because the sun can only light up a circular area with a diameter equaling the distance between the poles.  Draw a circle, then draw a circle within it with a diameter equal to the former's radius.  You'll see what I mean.

I know what you mean, that's why I said "about half" and not "exactly half". The concept that some of it is lit by the Sun and some by the sky mirror is what's important, not the exact proportions.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 29, 2009, 11:51:30 AM

Please provide support for your outlandish theory of why the back of the sun wouldn't be seen in your mirror.

As I have stated several times in this thread, the light from the sky mirror is only focused onto the Ice Wall, and then only for objects at the second focus in the sky. If the light from the mirror is not focused, it won't appear as anything but faint background noise.

Evidently you are confusing please provide support for your theory with please provide feeble ramblings of your opinion to describe a phenomenon.  You are really grasping at straws on this one.  You provide no reason that the entire mirror wouldn't be illuminated by the  light from the portion of the sun facing your mirror.  Remember focused and visible are two different things.

Evidently you are confusing please provide support for your theory with please provide feeble ramblings of your opinion to describe a phenomenon.  You are really grasping at straws on this one.  You provide no reason that the entire mirror wouldn't be illuminated by the  light from the portion of the sun facing your mirror.  Remember focused and visible are two different things.

In order for the light from the mirror to be visible in the same location as the solar eclipse, the mirror would need to be very close to parallel to the ground at this point. So long as the mirror is never parallel to the ground, there will never be a reflection visible during a solar eclipse.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 29, 2009, 12:31:57 PM

Evidently you are confusing please provide support for your theory with please provide feeble ramblings of your opinion to describe a phenomenon.  You are really grasping at straws on this one.  You provide no reason that the entire mirror wouldn't be illuminated by the  light from the portion of the sun facing your mirror.  Remember focused and visible are two different things.

In order for the light from the mirror to be visible in the same location as the solar eclipse, the mirror would need to be very close to parallel to the ground at this point. So long as the mirror is never parallel to the ground, there will never be a reflection visible during a solar eclipse.

Ever seen a headlight before?

Ever seen a headlight before?

Yes, why?

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 29, 2009, 12:40:56 PM

Ever seen a headlight before?

Yes, why?

The entire structure(mirror) behind it is illuminated by the light.  Block the front(eclipse) and you can still see it illuminated.

The entire structure(mirror) behind it is illuminated by the light.  Block the front(eclipse) and you can still see it illuminated.

A headlight uses a parabolic mirror, which focuses the light in an entirely different way to the ellipsoidal construct we are discussing.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 29, 2009, 12:55:05 PM

The entire structure(mirror) behind it is illuminated by the light.  Block the front(eclipse) and you can still see it illuminated.

A headlight uses a parabolic mirror, which focuses the light in an entirely different way to the ellipsoidal construct we are discussing.

And this construct precludes it from being illiminated how?

If the mirror was ellipsoidal then it would make the image of the sun look (a) not round and (b) smaller. This doesn't happen. Theory disproved. (Though to be honest it's already been disproved about five times in this thread so far).

If the mirror was ellipsoidal then it would make the image of the sun look (a) not round and (b) smaller. This doesn't happen. Theory disproved. (Though to be honest it's already been disproved about five times in this thread so far).

And:
http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/389
http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/images/Image/Pics/Physics/oriel_webpage_physics_MirrorFurnace.jpg

And this construct precludes it from being illiminated how?

Light reflected from the Sun would not reach an observer where the eclipse is taking place, but would end up somewhere else entirely.

If the mirror was ellipsoidal then it would make the image of the sun look (a) not round and (b) smaller. This doesn't happen. Theory disproved. (Though to be honest it's already been disproved about five times in this thread so far).

Its axes are so large that any small part of it is approximately flat. Therefore, the distortion experienced is minimal, while the focusing of the light is significant over the large distances involved.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 29, 2009, 02:14:12 PM

And this construct precludes it from being illiminated how?

Light reflected from the Sun would not reach an observer where the eclipse is taking place, but would end up somewhere else entirely.

In a completely different place I'll bet.....

http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/389

http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/images/Image/Pics/Physics/oriel_webpage_physics_MirrorFurnace.jpg

In a completely different place I'll bet.....

Yes; in space, beyond the Ice Wall or in Antarctica itself.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on October 28, 2009, 09:43:22 PM

Here are some animations I did a while ago for something else.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on July 31, 2009, 09:04:04 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 31, 2009, 01:15:01 PM

To be honest, I'm not a big supporter of that geographic model anyway, but I lack the time and computer skills to do an animation of my own.

If I recall, he likes the idea that Antarctica as a continent exists, which isn't such a bad idea.  Here are a few rough animations of the sun's orbit:

[IMG]

Note that this is simply an azimuthal projection and does not accurately represent the Flat Earth or the orbit of the sun.

Okay so are you saying the sun revolves around the earth?

I don't believe I said anything in this thread beyond "Here are some animations I did a while ago for something else.", "If I recall, he likes the idea that Antarctica as a continent exists, which isn't such a bad idea.  Here are a few rough animations of the sun's orbit" and "Note that this is simply an azimuthal projection and does not accurately represent the Flat Earth or the orbit of the sun."

I don't know how you got that from what I've said.

So okay Parsifal, I am really trying to understand your theory, I don't believe it but I am still making an effort to expand my mind.
How did this alleged SKY MIRROR get up there?
If we put it up there don't you think we could also photograph earth from a distance and see that it is flat or round?
Or we could attach a camera to our many Satellites up there and they could also take a picture. However its a bit closer to earth so it may be hard to determine flat vs round for the untrained eye.

It would have formed naturally.

You believe in a flat earth right?

My beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.

Well how does gravity work in the flat earth theory?

Please read the FAQ, and the Gravity sticky.

So this incredibly complex shape was formed naturally.

I'm afraid to ask, but do you actually believe that?

Or are your beliefs still irrelevant in this thread, even though you're essentially making it up as you go along?

How did this alleged SKY MIRROR get up there?
If we put it up there don't you think we could also photograph earth from a distance and see that it is flat or round?

You see Mallory, when a UA and a bendy light really love each other sometimes they lay really close to each other at night and when they did, a beautiful, completely invisible sky mirror was born and shot into space by UA to where it now resides bendying bendy light for all to see.

It would have formed naturally.

In a perfect ellipsoid completely immune to thermal deformation, that doesn't get lit up to be visible?

Um I have spent most of this evening trying to read all 59 pages of the Gravity Sticky.
It did not mention anything about how gravity works in a flat earth reality.
Modern physics does not currently account for FLAT PLANETS it can only account for round.
Maybe I am missing something in that thread.
FYI I found the engineers quote quite convoluted.
I felt like I was reading in circles.  Which can only mean he was writing in circles. lol!

Basically, there are two theories. The finite Earth model claims that what we perceive as gravity is the result of constant upward acceleration, while the infinite Earth model claims that there is a uniform gravitational field on either side of the Earth, much like a hypothetical infinite sheet of charge generates a uniform electric field around it.

So this incredibly complex shape was formed naturally.

I'm afraid to ask, but do you actually believe that?

Or are your beliefs still irrelevant in this thread, even though you're essentially making it up as you go along?

My beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.

In a perfect ellipsoid completely immune to thermal deformation, that doesn't get lit up to be visible?

It is visible. That's kind of the whole point.

It is visible. That's kind of the whole point.

I've never heard of anyone seeing it.  Have you seen it in all of its perfectly formed non distorted glory?

I've never heard of anyone seeing it.  Have you seen it in all of its perfectly formed non distorted glory?

No, as it is only visible from extreme south latitudes, and then never in its entirety at any particular instant.

Except gravity it does not work that way...
Charge does not effect gravity.
the idea of gravity acting like two charged plates is not valid because gravity and electricity behave completely differently!!

Actually, the equations which describe Newtonian gravitation and the Coulomb force have identical form, the only differences being the magnitude of the constant term and that one is dependent on mass, the other charge. A comparison between gravitational and electric fields is, in this sense, perfectly justified.

Just by the nature of gravity it tends to form things in globs.
Squares, and flat surfaces tend to be man made.
If you observe asteroids or planets or star groupings or any grouping of mass in the universe you do not see Square, or flat things out there.

If there was cubed or rectangular or flat objects they would not have a uniform gravitational fields. Only spheres or globs can!
We experience a uniform gravitational field because our planet, the mass which is the source of the field it essentially spherical!

What you are saying is valid for objects of finite extent. However, if - as some hypothesise - the Earth is flat and infinite, it would generate a uniform gravitational field.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 30, 2009, 03:24:42 PM

I've never heard of anyone seeing it.  Have you seen it in all of its perfectly formed non distorted glory?

No, as it is only visible from extreme south latitudes, and then never in its entirety at any particular instant.

Quote from: mallory d. on October 30, 2009, 10:08:12 PM

Except gravity it does not work that way...
Charge does not effect gravity.
the idea of gravity acting like two charged plates is not valid because gravity and electricity behave completely differently!!

Actually, the equations which describe Newtonian gravitation and the Coulomb force have identical form, the only differences being the magnitude of the constant term and that one is dependent on mass, the other charge. A comparison between gravitational and electric fields is, in this sense, perfectly justified.

Quote from: mallory d. on October 30, 2009, 10:08:12 PM

Just by the nature of gravity it tends to form things in globs.
Squares, and flat surfaces tend to be man made.
If you observe asteroids or planets or star groupings or any grouping of mass in the universe you do not see Square, or flat things out there.

If there was cubed or rectangular or flat objects they would not have a uniform gravitational fields. Only spheres or globs can!
We experience a uniform gravitational field because our planet, the mass which is the source of the field it essentially spherical!

What you are saying is valid for objects of finite extent. However, if - as some hypothesise - the Earth is flat and infinite, it would generate a uniform gravitational field.

Your beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.

Your beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.

Please point out where I have referenced my beliefs in this thread, except to say that they are irrelevant.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 31, 2009, 07:34:43 AM

Your beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.

Please point out where I have referenced my beliefs in this thread, except to say that they are irrelevant.

That is irrelevant.

Quote from: Its a Sphere on October 30, 2009, 03:24:42 PM

I've never heard of anyone seeing it.  Have you seen it in all of its perfectly formed non distorted glory?

No, as it is only visible from extreme south latitudes, and then never in its entirety at any particular instant.

Accept that it would be lit up for all to see.
http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/images/Image/Pics/Physics/oriel_webpage_physics_MirrorFurnace.jpg

There's a very simple disproof of the sky mirror - it would reflect the stars. We don't see that. Conflict with observed evidence = disproof.
Parsifal, please don't bother replying to this, your beliefs are irrelevant.