More things wrong with the Sun...

Not sure if this has ever been brought up before, but given the path and altitude of the sun in FET, (applying the law of inverse squares) the intensity of sunlight should spike massively in the middle of the day and then drop off sharply in the following few hours. But of course, in reality, it doesn't - it's rather the opposite. Sunshine between 10am and 2pm is relatively even, when according to FET this should be the most intense rise and fall of the day. What's the FE position on this descrepancy?

Commence Flaming/Trolling/Instructions directed to read the FAQ!

Not sure if this has ever been brought up before, but given the path and altitude of the sun in FET, (applying the law of inverse squares) the intensity of sunlight should spike massively in the middle of the day and then drop off sharply in the following few hours. But of course, in reality, it doesn't - it's rather the opposite. Sunshine between 10am and 2pm is relatively even, when according to FET this should be the most intense rise and fall of the day. What's the FE position on this descrepancy?

Commence Flaming/Trolling/Instructions directed to read the FAQ!

There is no solution for this problem. The Sun should be at least 6 times more luminous at noon compared with 4 pm, and would be even worse at dawn and dusk. And if you add "bendy light" to the comparison, it must get even worse, since light is taking an even longer path to reach the observer.

You can say that there must be a way to define a "bendy light" that makes the sun appear where we see it while it really is hovering someplace above Earth. But even if you manage to define the bendy path of light to make the sun appear where you see it, the intensity would be totally wrong.

I've always thought Bendy light was funny. If you allow for "Bendy" light, then why not Bendy weather, Bendy gravity or Bendy space? Of course, you keep bending things and soon enough you end up with a Bendy Earth.

I think that's going to be my new scientific position. I subscribe to Bendy Earth Theory.

This is a very good point. In order to achieve the luminosity we see every day, the sun would have to put out more light towards its edge, yet there is no reason to believe that its luminosity varies across its surface.

Until FE'ers can come up with a reason for this to happen, and experimentally verify that it is true, I consider this...

Another win for RET!

Another win for RET!

I'm beginning to lose count.  I need start saving links of threads like this to shove in the faces of FE'ers when they get all trolly.

This is a very good point. In order to achieve the luminosity we see every day, the sun would have to put out more light towards its edge, yet there is no reason to believe that its luminosity varies across its surface.

Until FE'ers can come up with a reason for this to happen, and experimentally verify that it is true, I consider this...

Another win for RET!

There is also the detail of the sun spots. If the sun somehow produces a lot more light through the borders, why is it that it show the same sun spots at every time of the day? And why it shows a seemingly perfect circle shape all through the day?

This is a very good point. In order to achieve the luminosity we see every day, the sun would have to put out more light towards its edge, yet there is no reason to believe that its luminosity varies across its surface.

Until FE'ers can come up with a reason for this to happen, and experimentally verify that it is true, I consider this...

Another win for RET!

I distinctly see a little somethin somethin along the edges of the spotlight. And the Sun is suppose to behave similar to one. (Allegedly)

Quote from: General Disarray on June 13, 2010, 03:00:38 PM

This is a very good point. In order to achieve the luminosity we see every day, the sun would have to put out more light towards its edge, yet there is no reason to believe that its luminosity varies across its surface.

Until FE'ers can come up with a reason for this to happen, and experimentally verify that it is true, I consider this...

Another win for RET!

[img]http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://schlissellaw.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/spotlight.jpg&sa=X&ei=Ua0VTO3HJIzEMbHdlJkL&ved=0CAQQ8wc4BA&usg=AFQjCNHm6VinWINf7kf6N8_2r_87cmN2vQ[/img
I distinctly see a little somethin somethin along the edges of the spotlight. And the Sun is suppose to behave similar to one. (Allegedly)

Not sure what your point is... the distance from the light to the edge of the lit area is greater than to the center of the lit area. If you measured luminosity at both those points, you would find a different value.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 13, 2010, 09:19:25 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 13, 2010, 03:00:38 PM

yet there is no reason to believe that its luminosity varies across its surface.

I distinctly see a little somethin somethin along the edges of the spotlight. And the Sun is suppose to behave similar to one. (Allegedly)

If you measured luminosity at both those points, you would find a different value.

That's exactly my point.

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Why? What are the equations governing the absorption of light in air, and how do they demonstrate this theory to be true?

Also, the continuation of the light rays at any point on the Earth's surface do not necessarily pass through the true position of the Sun.

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Actually quite the opposite. the more the angle, the more air it travels through, and the more energy gets absorbed.
sources: The Dangerous Book for Boys and http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-06/1118131199.Es.r.html

Quote from: Parsifal on June 13, 2010, 09:33:49 PM

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Actually quite the opposite. the more the angle, the more air it travels through, and the more energy gets absorbed.
sources: The Dangerous Book for Boys and http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-06/1118131199.Es.r.html

You're not accounting for magnetoresonance of the air, which is observed horizontally but not vertically because it requires a plane of equal pressure.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 13, 2010, 10:15:38 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on June 13, 2010, 09:33:49 PM

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Actually quite the opposite. the more the angle, the more air it travels through, and the more energy gets absorbed.
sources: The Dangerous Book for Boys and http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-06/1118131199.Es.r.html

You're not accounting for magnetoresonance of the air, which is observed horizontally but not vertically because it requires a plane of equal pressure.

This is trolling at its worst.

Go look at planes flying high, take some photographs showing how "the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down", and make history of science, maybe even get a Nobel Prize. Or, alternatively, just stop trolling.

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Just  a few questions:

How exactly does air "absorb" light? What happens to it? Where does all that energy go?
How does the air know from which direction the light is coming from?
Why isn't this true of all light? Why isn't this true of street lamps?
Why hasn't this phenomenon been observed in experiments designed to test the visibility of air (and various other gasses)?
Most interestingly, if light from above is more readily "absorbed" why isn't the sky directly above my head a darker shade of blue?
And last of all, what makes this theory "obvious" or "simple"?

Please show all workings-out.

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Then you're contradicting the magnification effect of Air to account for the sun appearing to retain it's shape and size during the day even though it's moving further away from us at a constant altitude.

Protip: that statement by Parsifal was designed to make you do as much work as possible to disprove it without much work by him. You'll notice he didn't provide any evidence.

Protip: that statement by Parsifal was designed to make you do as much work as possible to disprove it without much work by him. You'll notice he didn't provide any evidence.

Nor did I.

Quote from: Parsifal on June 13, 2010, 09:33:49 PM

Must this question really be asked? Obviously, the air simply absorbs most of the light coming straight down. However, the light coming down at a less severe angle is less affected by this absorption.

Then you're contradicting the magnification effect of Air to account for the sun appearing to retain it's shape and size during the day even though it's moving further away from us at a constant altitude.

You just pounded the coffin nail through the floor.

Also, the continuation of the light rays at any point on the Earth's surface do not necessarily pass through the true position of the Sun.

What a nice way of saying "bendy light" without using the damned words. Beyond the well known refraction of light from stars at an altitude of less than 15^o, which gradually increases to a bit less than half a degree at altitude zero, there are no significant additional phenomena that bend light. Certainly nothing that makes us see the Sun, Moon, planets or stars several degrees away from their true positions.

Anything that would be useful for one of your "theories" would have to be on the order of tens of degrees of "not necessarily pass through".

How exactly does air "absorb" light? What happens to it? Where does all that energy go?

It gets absorbed as heat, which is later dissipated as infrared back into space.

How does the air know from which direction the light is coming from?

As I said, the air is magnetoresonant horizontally. It will therefore only absorb the vertical component of the light's motion.

Why isn't this true of all light? Why isn't this true of street lamps?

Why would you assume that it isn't?

Why hasn't this phenomenon been observed in experiments designed to test the visibility of air (and various other gasses)?

You'd have to ask the experimenters that.

Most interestingly, if light from above is more readily "absorbed" why isn't the sky directly above my head a darker shade of blue?

Because it's closer to you. Ordinarily, it would be brighter, just as the Sun would overhead. This absorption causes it to appear more or less the same shade.

And last of all, what makes this theory "obvious" or "simple"?

The fact that if the Sun would be brighter when overhead, and it is observed not to be, then something must be getting in the way of the light.

Then you're contradicting the magnification effect of Air to account for the sun appearing to retain it's shape and size during the day even though it's moving further away from us at a constant altitude.

Air doesn't magnify light in this way, and even if it did, that would have nothing to do with its effect on the intensity of the light.

Quote from: Tristan on June 14, 2010, 07:50:29 AM

How exactly does air "absorb" light? What happens to it? Where does all that energy go?

It gets absorbed as heat, which is later dissipated as infrared back into space.

Quote from: Tristan on June 14, 2010, 07:50:29 AM

How does the air know from which direction the light is coming from?

As I said, the air is magnetoresonant horizontally. It will therefore only absorb the vertical component of the light's motion.

Quote from: Tristan on June 14, 2010, 07:50:29 AM

Why isn't this true of all light? Why isn't this true of street lamps?

Why would you assume that it isn't?

Quote from: Tristan on June 14, 2010, 07:50:29 AM

Why hasn't this phenomenon been observed in experiments designed to test the visibility of air (and various other gasses)?

You'd have to ask the experimenters that.

Quote from: Tristan on June 14, 2010, 07:50:29 AM

Most interestingly, if light from above is more readily "absorbed" why isn't the sky directly above my head a darker shade of blue?

Because it's closer to you. Ordinarily, it would be brighter, just as the Sun would overhead. This absorption causes it to appear more or less the same shade.

Quote from: Tristan on June 14, 2010, 07:50:29 AM

And last of all, what makes this theory "obvious" or "simple"?

The fact that if the Sun would be brighter when overhead, and it is observed not to be, then something must be getting in the way of the light.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 07:53:20 AM

Then you're contradicting the magnification effect of Air to account for the sun appearing to retain it's shape and size during the day even though it's moving further away from us at a constant altitude.

Air doesn't magnify light in this way, and even if it did, that would have nothing to do with its effect on the intensity of the light.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 07:53:20 AM

Then you're contradicting the magnification effect of Air to account for the sun appearing to retain it's shape and size during the day even though it's moving further away from us at a constant altitude.

Air doesn't magnify light in this way, and even if it did, that would have nothing to do with its effect on the intensity of the light.

Just to make sure I understand you...
You're saying that the atmosphere will NOT magnify the sun so that it appears larger even though it's farther away?

Just to make sure I understand you...
You're saying that the atmosphere will NOT magnify the sun so that it appears larger even though it's farther away?

That is indeed what I am saying.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 03:25:45 PM

Just to make sure I understand you...
You're saying that the atmosphere will NOT magnify the sun so that it appears larger even though it's farther away?

That is indeed what I am saying.

I love it when FEers (or in this case a pretend FEer) contradicts each other.
Tom Bishop says otherwise.  How else do you explain how the sun doesn't shrink in size as it "sets"?

Tom Bishop says otherwise.  How else do you explain how the sun doesn't shrink in size as it "sets"?

Bendy light.

I love it when FEers (or in this case a pretend FEer) contradicts each other.

Welcome to Flat Earth Society, you must be new here. At the Flat Earth Society, you'll find that Flat Earthers (also commonly called FE'ers) openly will say that they have different schools of thought on Flat Earth Theory.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 06:18:48 PM

Tom Bishop says otherwise.  How else do you explain how the sun doesn't shrink in size as it "sets"?

Bendy light.

If light bends, then that means that it's taking a longer path and therefore it should appear even smaller as moves farther away.

If light bends, then that means that it's taking a longer path and therefore it should appear even smaller as moves farther away.

Light that moves through a magnifying glass is refracting through it, and therefore taking a longer path. Does this mean magnifying glasses should cause things to appear smaller?