More things wrong with the Sun...

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.

This is the tap dancing (a.k.a. trolling) that Parsifal and other FE theorists love so much. You have at least three problems to solve: the apparent position, the intensity and the apparent size of every celestial object. In the case of the Sun and Moon you also have the problem of explaining the fact that the surface features (solar spots and craters, respectively) are seen exactly in the same position wherever the observer is on Earth.

For years now FE has given an "explanation" of one or the other or the other, but the explanation for one characteristic messes up the explanation for the other.

Parsifal is trying to avoid the simultaneous discussion of the apparent size and the intensity of the Sun because he has no simultaneous solution for both.

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.

Doesn't work.
The light would have to bend in such a way as to make the sun appear only within say... 10 degrees of it's full rotation around the Earth.  Anymore and it would start decreasing in noticeable size.

Quote from: markjo on June 14, 2010, 06:41:25 PM

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?

That depends on which side of the magnifying glass you're on.  An observer at the focal point in this image would indeed see a sun smaller than if the light had not passed through the magnifying glass.

Doesn't work.
The light would have to bend in such a way as to make the sun appear only within say... 10 degrees of it's full rotation around the Earth.  Anymore and it would start decreasing in noticeable size.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 09, 2010, 09:16:13 PM

Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?

No.

We can leave it at that until such evidence is provided.

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.

*facepalm* I said light in this situation loses more energy when it goes along an angle and takes a longer path. my sources used both factors. the idea is bulletproof. this is some hardcore trolling my friend. proof of sciences current understanding lies in the fact that it is hotter at noon.

*facepalm* I said light in this situation loses more energy when it goes along an angle and takes a longer path. my sources used both factors. the idea is bulletproof

Magnetoresonance causes the nitrogen molecules to oscillate in tandem with the light rays, thus reducing its absorption of them.

Stop trying to disprove him, he's just making stuff up. Ask for evidence.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 07:42:37 PM

Doesn't work.
The light would have to bend in such a way as to make the sun appear only within say... 10 degrees of it's full rotation around the Earth.  Anymore and it would start decreasing in noticeable size.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Sure:
If you look at something far away, it appears small.  If the sun get's farther and farther away, it should appear smaller and smaller.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 08:17:01 PM

*facepalm* I said light in this situation loses more energy when it goes along an angle and takes a longer path. my sources used both factors. the idea is bulletproof

Magnetoresonance causes the nitrogen molecules to oscillate in tandem with the light rays, thus reducing its absorption of them.

I didn't ask for evidence. I showed you that no matter what you say, light loses more energy on the angle/longerpath.
whatever new factors you introduce, real or not, doesn't change the fact that in reality my statement is true.
just look at my sources or go outside for a day. notice how it is hotter at noon.


I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

Haven't you noticed? He's losing he touch.  I think he's getting tired.

Sure:
If you look at something far away, it appears small.  If the sun get's farther and farther away, it should appear smaller and smaller.

Bendy light acts to magnify it. I have posted on this subject before.

I didn't ask for evidence. I showed you that no matter what you say, light loses more energy on the angle/longerpath.
whatever new factors you introduce, real or not, doesn't change the fact that in reality my statement is true.
just look at my sources or go outside for a day. notice how it is hotter at noon.

I pointed out why you are wrong, and now you're just stamping your feet and saying that you are right no matter what. Is this really the kind of debate strategy REers want to associate themselves with?

I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

The OP said nothing about temperature.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 08:25:04 PM

Sure:
If you look at something far away, it appears small.  If the sun get's farther and farther away, it should appear smaller and smaller.

Bendy light acts to magnify it. I have posted on this subject before.

Nope.
It is not Bendy and Magnification Light.  Please keep your theories within the confines of their name.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 08:28:49 PM

I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

Haven't you noticed? He's losing he touch.  I think he's getting tired.

Please refrain from making low-content posts in the upper fora.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 08:28:49 PM

I didn't ask for evidence. I showed you that no matter what you say, light loses more energy on the angle/longerpath.
whatever new factors you introduce, real or not, doesn't change the fact that in reality my statement is true.
just look at my sources or go outside for a day. notice how it is hotter at noon.

I pointed out why you are wrong, and now you're just stamping your feet and saying that you are right no matter what. Is this really the kind of debate strategy REers want to associate themselves with?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 08:28:49 PM

I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

The OP said nothing about temperature.

you pointed out a factor that is associated with heat loss.
I showed you that the total sum of factors still aligns with my original theory, that more angle==> more heatloss
yeah I use empirical evidence over theories that have no numbers to them, I guess I'm funny like that.

Fine replace temperature with intensity of heat. You should have pointed out that distance is not a factor, instead of posting something that is completely wrong. I'm right no matter what you say, because the data fits my theory, not yours, so even if you say, "but what about factors x,y, and z" those theories don't change empirical fact. :/

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 08:30:43 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 08:28:49 PM

I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

Haven't you noticed? He's losing he touch.  I think he's getting tired.

Please refrain from making low-content posts in the upper fora.

how can you say that when you are memberating?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 14, 2010, 10:15:57 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 14, 2010, 08:30:43 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 14, 2010, 08:28:49 PM

I don't see why you posted this nonsense. the parisifal I know would have pointed out that the distance from the sun to the earth isn't really a factor into the temperature. Thusly OP's argument about inverse square law is invalid :/

Haven't you noticed? He's losing he touch.  I think he's getting tired.

Please refrain from making low-content posts in the upper fora.

how can you say that when you are memberating?

Memberating isn't low content. It is a lesser of two evils. I would rather not have to see Lorddave bogging up threads with constant useless comments in the upper fora. If he wishes he can do that than he can do it in the lower fora.

Actually the sun is much less intense at setting than overhead at noonday. At noon it is extremely difficult to look at the sun. During its setting the sun is much more diluted and it is possible to look directly at the sun without squinting at all.

As far as the size at sunset goes, it is discussed in the wiki:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

Actually the sun is much less intense at setting than overhead at noonday. At noon it is extremely difficult to look at the sun. During its setting the sun is much more diluted and it is possible to look directly at the sun without squinting at all.

As far as the size at sunset goes, it is discussed in the wiki:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

Thanks Tom, but the point was more that the path of the sun was such that the noon sun should be many, many times brighter than at 2pm or 10am, when in fact it tends to even out during these hours.

You have at least three problems to solve: the apparent position, the intensity and the apparent size of every celestial object. In the case of the Sun and Moon you also have the problem of explaining the fact that the surface features (solar spots and craters, respectively) are seen exactly in the same position wherever the observer is on Earth.

For years now FE has given an "explanation" of one or the other or the other, but the explanation for one characteristic messes up the explanation for the other.

Wonder why this comment is never replied by the FE "theorists"?

Actually the sun is much less intense at setting than overhead at noonday. At noon it is extremely difficult to look at the sun. During its setting the sun is much more diluted and it is possible to look directly at the sun without squinting at all.

As far as the size at sunset goes, it is discussed in the wiki:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Sun

But Tom, the wiki and Parsifal's explanation can't both be right, so which is it?

But Tom, the wiki and Parsifal's explanation can't both be right, so which is it?

Since Tom wrote that wiki page...  Well, I think that you can figure out the answer to your own question.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 15, 2010, 07:41:47 AM

But Tom, the wiki and Parsifal's explanation can't both be right, so which is it?

Since Tom wrote that wiki page...  Well, I think that you can figure out the answer to your own question.

Not necessarily.  Parsifal is determined and I think he could out debate Tom.

Quote from: markjo on June 15, 2010, 09:41:42 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 15, 2010, 07:41:47 AM

But Tom, the wiki and Parsifal's explanation can't both be right, so which is it?

Since Tom wrote that wiki page...  Well, I think that you can figure out the answer to your own question.

Not necessarily.  Parsifal is determined and I think he could out debate Tom.

Perhaps I was too subtle.  You asked Tom whether he thought the wiki or Parsifal was right.  I was merely pointing out that since Tom wrote the wiki page in question, then it should be blindingly obvious which explanation Tom would think is the correct one.

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.

Do you have evidence for this phenomena?

Quote from: Parsifal on June 14, 2010, 06:34:26 PM

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.

Do you have evidence for this phenomena?

I can answer that for him:

Quote from: General Disarray on June 09, 2010, 09:16:13 PM

Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?

No.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 15, 2010, 09:48:23 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 15, 2010, 09:41:42 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 15, 2010, 07:41:47 AM

But Tom, the wiki and Parsifal's explanation can't both be right, so which is it?

Since Tom wrote that wiki page...  Well, I think that you can figure out the answer to your own question.

Not necessarily.  Parsifal is determined and I think he could out debate Tom.

Perhaps I was too subtle.  You asked Tom whether he thought the wiki or Parsifal was right.  I was merely pointing out that since Tom wrote the wiki page in question, then it should be blindingly obvious which explanation Tom would think is the correct one.

No you weren't.  I understood you, but I want Tom to say it himself.

No you weren't.  I understood you, but I want Tom to say it himself.

Why would you expect Tom to acknowledge that he referenced a wiki page that he wrote? 

Quote from: Lorddave on June 15, 2010, 02:53:40 PM

No you weren't.  I understood you, but I want Tom to say it himself.

Why would you expect Tom to acknowledge that he referenced a wiki page that he wrote? 

No.  I want Tom to say Parsifal is wrong.
You know, to hopefully start some infighting?

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.

Are you serious? It's like you've just found a fancy word (and by the way "magnetoresonant", isn't a real word) and inserted it in a sentence without bothering to look up what it means.

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?

It's not an assumption, it's an observation. Street lamps (and every other light source I have ever encountered) are noticably brighter when you get closer to them, regardless of whether or not the light is travelling vertically or horizontally or is over your head or beneath you or to your left or right.

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.

I would, but I think I already know what their answer would be.

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.

You seem to be having trouble grasping concepts like "closer" or "ordinary". The Sun is an object with a definite proximity to another object. The Sky is not - it's not a thing you can measure your distance from, so saying it's "closer to you" is meaningless. And why would the sky "ordinarily" be brighter, other than to validate your argument by means of circular logic?

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.

You're saying the solution to "why is the sun not brighter?" is obvious because the sun isn't brighter. When you hear yourself talk, does it make sense to you?

I expected more from you, Parsifal. 

Anyone else have any "serious" suggestions?