why dont the ice caps melt?

hi,

was wondering how you explain this ..... if you follow the RET then you can see that because different parts of the earth are closer than others to the sun, this causes temperature varriations across our planet. In the diagram below you can see that the added distance that the sun's rays have to travel to the north and south pole means that the temperature is sufficient for ice caps to exist without melting quickly. It would however be impossible for ice caps to exist closer to the equator where it is warmer.



But with the FET, the sun presumeably is directly above the flat earth and of course is larger than the earth, so surely every point of the earth would be at around the same distance from the sun and therefore at around the same temperature? why do the ice caps that hold the FET ocean's in not melt?

The ice caps don't melt because God willed them not to.

Why would a few miles north or south affect the suns rays so much? Thats a pretty week ass sun..

Why would a few miles north or south affect the suns rays so much? Thats a pretty week ass sun..

the diameter of the spherical earth is around 12,750 km

therefore the suns rays have 6,375 km (half the diameter) further to travel to reach the poles than to reach the equator, causing the temperatures to be around 30c average at the equator and -30c at the poles, a small difference considering the temperature at the surface of the sun is around 5505 °C.

The ice caps don't melt because it's not hot enough.

The ice caps don't melt because it's not hot enough.

+1

Ha!  This reminds me of something I heard on the radio in Florida.  The little girl announcer was saying that the incidence of skin cancer in Florida is higher than elsewhere "Because we are closer to the sun."  LOL

Ha!  This reminds me of something I heard on the radio in Florida.  The little girl announcer was saying that the incidence of skin cancer in Florida is higher than elsewhere "Because we are closer to the sun."  LOL

you're right that our distance to the Sun has very little to do with the temperature. in fact, in the heliocentric RE model, the Earth is closest to the Sun in the Winter, and farthest in the Summer - due to the elliptical path of the Earth around the Sun.

So actually, the seasons work more like this:



Note how, in the Summer, the Sun's rays are more concentrated, and in the Winter the Sun's rays are more spread out on the Earth's surface. Since the Sun's rays are more concentrated in the Summer, the Earth is hotter in that region. Similarly for the Winter.

You can formalize this in the following way:
Intensity is defined as Energy per second (which is Power) spread over a certain distance (or area). In the illustration, each ray of light represents a certain amount of energy - and power - (since each light ray carries some energy). Therefore,

I = N*P / D,

where
I = intensity,
N = the number of rays of light,
P = the energy per second of one ray of light, and
D = the distance that the light is incident on.

this gives:
I(S) = 3*P / s

and
I(W) = 3*P / (s + s')

thus the ratio:

I(S) / I(W) = (s+s')/s = 1 + s'/s

Thus I(S) > I(W), showing that it is hotter in the Summer than in the Winter.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

I'm eager to see some formulation for the cause of the seasons in FET.

Thanks, be cool guys.

EDIT: updated my picture to show s, s'

This has been gone over in many other threads.

In FET, the position of the sun varies throughout the year.  In June it is farthest north (over the tropic of Cancer) and in December the farthest South (tropic of Capricorn).  Not much different than the RET, really - and easily observable.

The seasons are mostly caused be the varying length of daylight hours, not other effects.

This has been gone over in many other threads.

In FET, the position of the sun varies throughout the year.  In June it is farthest north (over the tropic of Cancer) and in December the farthest South (tropic of Capricorn).  Not much different than the RET, really - and easily observable.

The seasons are mostly caused be the varying length of daylight hours, not other effects.

How does the FET map and daylight times during summer account for the extended days in both lets say Australia and Argentina - which are opposites on the FE map?

Berny
Very different from RET

This has been gone over in many other threads.

In FET, the position of the sun varies throughout the year.  In June it is farthest north (over the tropic of Cancer) and in December the farthest South (tropic of Capricorn).  Not much different than the RET, really - and easily observable.

The seasons are mostly caused be the varying length of daylight hours, not other effects.

that doesnt matter that the position of the sun varies throughout the year, the sun is hundreds of times larger than the earth regardless of which train of thought you follow. Therefore if the earth is flat then the suns rays have the same distance to travel to the centre of the earth as they do to the edges as you can see in my awesome drawing.




the ice caps around the edge of the disc would receive the suns rays at the same distance and time as the centre of the disc would.

Your scale is a little off there.

Your scale is a little off there.

so do FE's believe the sun is much smaller than the earth?

so do FE's believe the sun is much smaller than the earth?

Lurk more, post less.

This has been gone over in many other threads.

In FET, the position of the sun varies throughout the year.  In June it is farthest north (over the tropic of Cancer) and in December the farthest South (tropic of Capricorn).  Not much different than the RET, really - and easily observable.

The seasons are mostly caused be the varying length of daylight hours, not other effects.

Thanks for the input, there.

I'd like to see some proof that the varying daylight hours are sufficient to cause the drastic differences in temperature - surely one must exist in FET.
Also, it seems that this must be a mathematical proof - i really see no other way around it, given the accuracy to which FET needs to compute the temperature differences.

Thanks, i can't wait to see the proof.

How does the FET map and daylight times during summer account for the extended days in both lets say Australia and Argentina - which are opposites on the FE map?

The answer is so simple in both RET and FET that you must be pulling my leg Berny. You rascal!

I'd like to see some proof that the varying daylight hours are sufficient to cause the drastic differences in temperature - surely one must exist in FET.

   I think you need to do some basic reading on the seasons.  As awesome as your drawing is, it is not the cause of the seasons.  Read, friend, read.  Or listen in class.

Quote from: be cool on June 28, 2011, 04:11:52 PM

I'd like to see some proof that the varying daylight hours are sufficient to cause the drastic differences in temperature - surely one must exist in FET.

   I think you need to do some basic reading on the seasons.  As awesome as your drawing is, it is not the cause of the seasons.  Read, friend, read.  Or listen in class.

I did actually, this is both mathematically and empirically (also logically - but that doesn't count much around here) supported.

So I ask you again to provide some rigorous alternative the theory that I presented (as part of the Heliocentric RET).
Additionally, I would like to ask you find the flaw in my reasoning other than simply stating it is not true, or "awesome".

Quote from: berny_74 on June 28, 2011, 09:32:28 AM

How does the FET map and daylight times during summer account for the extended days in both lets say Australia and Argentina - which are opposites on the FE map?

The answer is so simple in both RET and FET that you must be pulling my leg Berny. You rascal!

Well could you shed light on the subject?  Nobody on the FET side has actually come up with an answer of how the spotlight is supposed to work since it does not work on any provided map.

Berny
Rascal?  Haven't been called that since I was like 7

I did actually, this is both mathematically and empirically (also logically - but that doesn't count much around here) supported.

So I ask you again to provide some rigorous alternative the theory that I presented (as part of the Heliocentric RET).
Additionally, I would like to ask you find the flaw in my reasoning other than simply stating it is not true, or "awesome".

Something that you are missing in your derivation are the required assumptions needed for it to work, most importantly that the sun is much larger than and much farther away from earth therefore the sun's rays are assumed to be perfectly parallel.  The ranges of intensity are based on the angle of incidence of the rays relative to the surface of the earth, which in your example curves away from perpendicular. 

If the assumptions are changed to a smaller sun that is closer to the surface, the rays can no longer be assumed parallel and would lower in intensity as you move away from perpendicular in one direction or the other.  Once the assumptions are substituted the principle is the same.

Quote from: be cool on June 28, 2011, 06:03:59 PM

I did actually, this is both mathematically and empirically (also logically - but that doesn't count much around here) supported.

So I ask you again to provide some rigorous alternative the theory that I presented (as part of the Heliocentric RET).
Additionally, I would like to ask you find the flaw in my reasoning other than simply stating it is not true, or "awesome".

Something that you are missing in your derivation are the required assumptions needed for it to work, most importantly that the sun is much larger than and much farther away from earth therefore the sun's rays are assumed to be perfectly parallel.  The ranges of intensity are based on the angle of incidence of the rays relative to the surface of the earth, which in your example curves away from perpendicular. 

If the assumptions are changed to a smaller sun that is closer to the surface, the rays can no longer be assumed parallel and would lower in intensity as you move away from perpendicular in one direction or the other.  Once the assumptions are substituted the principle is the same.

You're right in that the RE Sun has to be very far away. But it can be easily shown that this is the case - just ask if you want to see how. Eratosthenes and Aristarchus knew this more than 2000 years ago.

But in the FE model of the Sun, the Sun is assumed to be a "spotlight". Even if your reasoning is correct, that would mean that intensity falls of greatly with distance from the center of incidence of light rays on the Earth. So this would not really explain the seasons since this effect is constant over the entire year.

But you'll notice that there are many more problems with the FE model of the Sun - ie that it illuminates the entire Earth all the time.
See this thread for more on the FE Sun: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

EDIT: Specifically, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" farther down. Thanks

Even if your reasoning is correct

I read, evaluated, and responded to your post as to why I believe your reasoning is correct or incorrect and I expect the same luxury if we are to continue this conversation any further.

So this would not really explain the seasons since this effect is constant over the entire year

For a seasonal effect, only the point at which the suns rays are perpendicular has to change.  This too is the same in principle, only the mechanism changes.

For a seasonal effect, only the point at which the suns rays are perpendicular has to change.  This too is the same in principle, only the mechanism changes.

True, but in the FE model of the Sun, the Sun moves over the Earth daily - in order to explain daylight hours - not seasonally. So, according to this reasoning, the FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

I read, evaluated, and responded to your post as to why I believe your reasoning is correct or incorrect and I expect the same luxury if we are to continue this conversation any further.

Sorry if I came of harsh, but as you can see, I am doing the same. And thank you for the mutual respect you are showing.
I would also like to get some feedback on these issues:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49250.0

Although only tangentially related, "Problem 1)" and "Problem 1) (revisited)" are key to understanding the Sun and current problems in the FE model.

FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

Sorry, I simply don't see how that's true.  If it were, it would be true for RET also.

The seasons change because of the length of the day and the inclination of the sun in the sky - same for FE or RE.  Having lived various places from 8 degrees to 60 degrees north of the equator I can attest to these changes.  Seems pretty simple.

FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

You are going to have to be more specific as to why you believe this.  As you move farther away from the point where the suns rays are perpendicular, the average intensity goes down.  As that point moves from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn and back again throughout the year, the inner and outer hemiplanes experiance opposite variations in intensity, or seasons.  Like I said earlier, it is the same in principle.

Quote from: be cool on June 29, 2011, 07:31:37 AM

FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

Sorry, I simply don't see how that's true.  If it were, it would be true for RET also.

The seasons change because of the length of the day and the inclination of the sun in the sky - same for FE or RE.  Having lived various places from 8 degrees to 60 degrees north of the equator I can attest to these changes.  Seems pretty simple.

Quote from: be cool on June 29, 2011, 07:31:37 AM

FE model predicts seasonal changes as drastic as Summer to Winter every day.

You are going to have to be more specific as to why you believe this.  As you move farther away from the point where the suns rays are perpendicular, the average intensity goes down.  As that point moves from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn and back again throughout the year, the inner and outer hemiplanes experiance opposite variations in intensity, or seasons.  Like I said earlier, it is the same in principle.

You guys are correct that I haven't explained myself very well. I'll do so now.

For a seasonal effect, only the point at which the suns rays are perpendicular has to change.

Isn't it true that in the FET, the Sun must move over the Earth in some way in order to explain how some areas of the Earth are lit and some areas are dark at different parts of the day?

Since this must be true to explain the day and night time, then, over the course of a day, the Sun must be directly overhead different parts of the Earth.

Thus, over the course of a day, the the point at which the Sun's rays are perpendicular to the Earth must change.

And so, according to Robbyj's words, this is a seasonal effect. Thus, over the course of a day, the Earth experiences seasonal changes.


Sorry it wasn't too clear before, but I hope that helped.

I understand what you are saying - but you've got the scale a little confused.

In both RE and FE there ARE seasonal changes as the sun moves around during the day.  Winter (cooler) at night and Summer (hotter) in the day.  There certainly is an effect.   As the sun moves from one hemisphere to the other throughout the year the same thing happens.  Only it lasts longer.  See what I mean?

I understand what you are saying - but you've got the scale a little confused.

In both RE and FE there ARE seasonal changes as the sun moves around during the day.  Winter (cooler) at night and Summer (hotter) in the day.  There certainly is an effect.   As the sun moves from one hemisphere to the other throughout the year the same thing happens.  Only it lasts longer.  See what I mean?

You still haven't explained how the days last longer in the southern hemisphere.

This map shows how portions of Australia and South America are lit during the day in the summer months.

Explain how it would show on a flat earth map


Berny
That would be more than 50% of the FE map shown

I said it before and so have others.   The FE sun does not stay directly above the equator all year long.  It moves back and forth from tropic to tropic over the year.

I said it before and so have others.   The FE sun does not stay directly above the equator all year long.  It moves back and forth from tropic to tropic over the year.

No no - what I am getting at is that for the period of that day - how does that look like any sort of spot lignt?  Just in that day alone - it has to cover over 50% of the Earth.  In a Flat Earth there is much more area than on a Round Earth.

Berny
There is no spotlight