The sun doesn't work as a spotlight

  • 142 Replies
  • 31918 Views
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2012, 11:02:38 AM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
You have never answered my question tom...  Why is the sun not visible from all parts of the earth while in a plane?  The atmosphere is significantly reduced, so distortion via the atmosphere is not an option.  Not to mention that in a plane the sun still does not shrink as it "moves away".

I've answered this already. If it's midnight and a plane is at an altitude of 5 miles (26400 feet), the sun is still 3000 miles in altitude above the earth and tens of thousands of miles away. The altitude of 5 miles is insignificant compared to the sun. The 5 mile altitude of the plane may result in the sun taking a bit longer to set into the horizon due to slightly more acute perspective lines at that altitude, but it still sets none-the-less, as the sun will eventually recede into the vanishing point of the plane.
to a tiny dot as it recedes from the observer.

Tom, Here is a side-on view of the flat earth, with an observer on the left and a midnight sun on the right.


Consider the 2D geometry of this atmospheric "section" and in paricular the photons leaving the sun: 

What path are the photons taking when they travel from the sun to the observer on the left?

Ahh yes thanks for posting that, i was too lazy to go dig it up.  Last time this was brought up it was explained as the atmosphere making the sun look as though it is "setting" instead of "shrinking" as it should on a FE. So i asked you tom, why when you eliminate the atmosphere, does the sun still set and not shrink.  And furthermore, why in the hell can i not just see it from everywhere on the globe while in a SR 71 Blackbird at 13 miles high?  Even the 7 miles high that a commercial jet can fly removes most of the earths atmosphere from the picture.

So no tom, you have never once answered my question regarding this issue.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42526
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2012, 11:27:37 AM »
Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit
You have never answered my question tom...  Why is the sun not visible from all parts of the earth while in a plane?  The atmosphere is significantly reduced, so distortion via the atmosphere is not an option.  Not to mention that in a plane the sun still does not shrink as it "moves away".

I've answered this already. If it's midnight and a plane is at an altitude of 5 miles (26400 feet), the sun is still 3000 miles in altitude above the earth and tens of thousands of miles away. The altitude of 5 miles is insignificant compared to the sun. The 5 mile altitude of the plane may result in the sun taking a bit longer to set into the horizon due to slightly more acute perspective lines at that altitude, but it still sets none-the-less, as the sun will eventually recede into the vanishing point of the plane.
to a tiny dot as it recedes from the observer.

Tom, Here is a side-on view of the flat earth, with an observer on the left and a midnight sun on the right.


Consider the 2D geometry of this atmospheric "section" and in paricular the photons leaving the sun: 

What path are the photons taking when they travel from the sun to the observer on the left?

Don't forget the fact that the sun would still have an angular diameter of 7.6 arc minutes.  This is significantly larger than the 1 arc minute diameter required to reach its vanishing point.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17891
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2012, 11:57:53 AM »
Quote from: ClickTower
We've repeatedly documented the sun rise and sun set times for various parts of the world. We've documented that the FE perspective of the Sun is wrong from many places. You've admitted that your postings are wrong. I guess there's nothing more but conclude that FET is embarrassingly wrong.

http://www.timesunrisesunset.com/
http://www.almanac.com/sun/rise/NH/Dublin/2012-01-13

The values in both of those links are from calculators based on RET, not direct observations of reality.

From the bottom of your first link:

"Daylight Saving Time (DST) / Summer Time is taken into account for all time calculations on this site."
Tom, you're getting forgetful, or rather more so than usual.

Try refreshing your memory by reading this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52461.msg1286655#msg1286655

Personally, I think it's much more impressive that RET predicts these times for everywhere in the world. It's a piece of cake for you to get the time of the next events from these links and then observe RET's accuracy. Of course, you could always lie about this as well, like you do with your Monterey Bay experiment.

Those sun calculator lists are calculations, and not based on reality. Please stop posting those.

Quote from: markjo
And you have done nothing to show that those calculations are inconsistent with real world observations.

A calculation by definition has no implied or guaranteed consistency with reality. It's a calculation, for what might be true, if certain variables were met.

As we know that the earth is not a globe, we know that the sun calculators are wrong, at least to some degree. I've seen inconstant suns calculations for myself, which I've described to you in the past. I do not trust a sun calculator any more than I trust an astrological/horoscope calculator.

Both calculators are predictions. It's not "amazing" that a calculator can predict things. There are uncountable bogus calculators out there. Look up the Death Clock, for instance, which purports to predict your day of death. That someone went to the trouble of making a calculator does not verify its accuracy in any way.

If you're a Death Clock supporter, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the calculator is correct, not on others to demonstrate that it is wrong. The skeptics have no stake in proving the matter. Why should skeptics believe in its truthfulness without compelling evidence?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 12:00:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2012, 12:12:14 PM »
Personally, I think it's much more impressive that RET predicts these times for everywhere in the world. It's a piece of cake for you to get the time of the next events from these links and then observe RET's accuracy. Of course, you could always lie about this as well, like you do with your Monterey Bay experiment.
Those sun calculator lists are calculations, and not based on reality. Please stop posting those.
So it's the FET Ostrich Technique (FOT). Can you substantiate your claim by providing even one piece of data supporting your claim? You'd just need to catch RET in one bad prediction to be credible. Until then, your lies about your Monterey Bay experiment condemn you as dishonest; your outlandish unsupported claims condemn you as delusional.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2012, 12:13:27 PM »
We already have shown that the calculators produce accurate predictions.

Tom, the reason you don't believe horoscopes and death clocks is because their predictions turn out to be wrong. If we had only examples of them being right and no examples of them being wrong, the logical conclusion would be that they are accurate.

Apply the same logic to the sun data.

You see, if your claim (that the calculators are wrong) is the correct one, then your proof would be the easiest to produce. We can, and have, given you several repeatable demonstrations that the predictions are correct, but these could conceivably be coincidences. For you, however, all you need to do is provide one repeatable demonstration that the predictions are ever wrong, and you will have proved your claim. Why can't you do this?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #65 on: January 14, 2012, 01:04:12 PM »
...your lies about your Monterey Bay experiment condemn you as dishonest; your outlandish unsupported claims condemn you as delusional.

How exactly have you determined this claim to be a lie?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42526
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #66 on: January 14, 2012, 01:10:11 PM »
Quote from: markjo
And you have done nothing to show that those calculations are inconsistent with real world observations.

A calculation by definition has no implied or guaranteed consistency with reality. It's a calculation, for what might be true, if certain variables were met.

As we know that the earth is not a globe, we know that the sun calculators are wrong, at least to some degree. I've seen inconstant suns calculations for myself, which I've described to you in the past.

No Tom, you've mentioned supposed inconsistencies with sun calculators.  I have never seen you describe those inconsistencies (and it's not for the lack of asking).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #67 on: January 14, 2012, 03:21:13 PM »
...your lies about your Monterey Bay experiment condemn you as dishonest; your outlandish unsupported claims condemn you as delusional.

How exactly have you determined this claim to be a lie?
1) The Science of Optics.



Distance to beach ball: 22 miles
Diameter of the largest commercially available beach ball: 17 feet Reference: http://www.beachballs.com/
Angular measure of the beach ball from across the bay: 17 feet/(pi * 2 * 22 miles) = 4.11040659 10-6 = 4.8 arcseconds



The best portable telescope has a objective lens of not more than 1m.

Using Sparrow's formula, the best portable telescope has no better than a resolution of 70 / 1000 = 14,000 arcseconds.



Reference: http://www.licha.de/astro_article_mtf_telescope_resolution.php

So he'd need a telescope 3000 times more powerful, so he must be lying.

2) Common sense.

ETA: Graphic of second calculation
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 09:20:11 PM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2012, 04:48:25 PM »
Have you reviewed the whole of the science of atmospheric optics so that you know Tom's Monterey Bay experiment to be a lie?  How did you determine that it's a lie as opposed to mistake, misinterpretation, faulty instruments, etc? 

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2012, 05:01:59 PM »
Have you reviewed the whole of the science of atmospheric optics so that you know Tom's Monterey Bay experiment to be a lie?  How did you determine that it's a lie as opposed to mistake, misinterpretation, faulty instruments, etc?
Yes.
Easily.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42526
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2012, 05:29:57 PM »
Have you reviewed the whole of the science of atmospheric optics so that you know Tom's Monterey Bay experiment to be a lie?  How did you determine that it's a lie as opposed to mistake, misinterpretation, faulty instruments, etc?

Since Tom rarely provides enough details to properly peer review his "experiments", I don't see how deception on Tom's part is an unreasonable possibility.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #71 on: January 14, 2012, 06:51:38 PM »
By the way, I thought I should provide Tom Bishop's lies here for reference:

Quote from: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17770.msg310005;topicseen#msg310005
Why don't you explain for me, in detail, what kind of margin of error occurs in my experiment across the Monterey Bay. Here it is again in case you've missed it:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #72 on: January 14, 2012, 07:20:15 PM »
Have you reviewed the whole of the science of atmospheric optics so that you know Tom's Monterey Bay experiment to be a lie?  How did you determine that it's a lie as opposed to mistake, misinterpretation, faulty instruments, etc?

Tom's descriptions are too specific to be misinterpretations. Faulty instruments don't take on superpowers.

It's either a lie or a hallucination.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42526
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2012, 07:22:39 PM »
Quote from: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17770.msg310005;topicseen#msg310005
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse.
...
I can see people sun bathing at the shore...

Californians must be of a fairly hardy stock to sun bathe on a very chilly day.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #74 on: January 14, 2012, 07:49:17 PM »

Tom's descriptions are too specific to be misinterpretations. Faulty instruments don't take on superpowers.

It's either a lie or a hallucination.

That is a false conclusion as true also remains a possibility.  Have you not looked for other possibilities regarding Monterey Bay's peculiar atmospheric optics or did you just leap in unprepared and cry "Liar"?

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2012, 08:11:31 PM »

Tom's descriptions are too specific to be misinterpretations. Faulty instruments don't take on superpowers.

It's either a lie or a hallucination.

That is a false conclusion as true also remains a possibility.  Have you not looked for other possibilities regarding Monterey Bay's peculiar atmospheric optics or did you just leap in unprepared and cry "Liar"?
Tom Bishops tells us that he regularly repeats the experiment to ensure that no peculiar atmospheric conditions interfere with the results. We took him at his word, researched the science, did the math, and made the very reasonable conclusion. We note that no FEer did the math or has reproduced the experiment locally with any detail or documentation. Even Tausami mistakenly claims that he reproduced this experiment on a river. Tom Bishop has explicitly stated that he will not, and need not, document his findings beyond a first-hand account. He demands that we accept his account, while he rejects the first-hand accounts of hundreds of astronauts over 40 years.

Ergo, he lies.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #76 on: January 14, 2012, 08:34:19 PM »

Tom's descriptions are too specific to be misinterpretations. Faulty instruments don't take on superpowers.

It's either a lie or a hallucination.

That is a false conclusion as true also remains a possibility.  Have you not looked for other possibilities regarding Monterey Bay's peculiar atmospheric optics or did you just leap in unprepared and cry "Liar"?

What qualifies you to say that is a "false" conclusion? Do tell us a "true" conclusion and explain how you determined its truthiness.

No, there remains no possibility. Did you look at the math? The margin for error really doesn't include any reasonable possibility that Tom is telling the truth.

What atmospheric possibilities are you talking about? Please note this additional claim at the end of Tom's post:

The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

Yep. Definitely lying.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 08:47:27 PM by zarg »
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2012, 08:47:42 PM »
I think he said he had ruled out any 'chance' optical illusions. 

Really, if you start out with that list of possibilities disregarding 'true,' it's fatally flawed from the get-go as you're preconcluding the conclusion. 

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #78 on: January 14, 2012, 08:51:35 PM »
Really, if you start out with that list of possibilities disregarding 'true,' it's fatally flawed from the get-go as you're preconcluding the conclusion.

What in blazes are you trying to say?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2012, 09:02:28 PM »
Really, if you start out with that list of possibilities disregarding 'true,' it's fatally flawed from the get-go as you're preconcluding the conclusion.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42526
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #80 on: January 14, 2012, 09:09:17 PM »
I think he said he had ruled out any 'chance' optical illusions. 

Really, if you start out with that list of possibilities disregarding 'true,' it's fatally flawed from the get-go as you're preconcluding the conclusion.

If Tom is making claims that defy the laws of optics (being able to see a beach ball at 30+ miles) then what possibilities should we consider?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2012, 09:09:52 PM »
You make no sense Peach. What list of possibilities? What does "disregarding true" mean? When did I "preconclude" anything? How does any of this relate to the fact that it's physically impossible (on a flat Earth or otherwise) for Tom to have seen what he claimed to have seen?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #82 on: January 14, 2012, 09:22:44 PM »

If Tom is making claims that defy the laws of optics (being able to see a beach ball at 30+ miles) then what possibilities should we consider?

I thought all this time it was a frisbee game.  Anyway, back to the preconcluded conclusion, I start out to determine if Markjo is a liar.  I have compiled this list of possibilities:

He is either (1.)telling a whopper or he is (2.) a perjurer.  Ergo he is a liar. 

Oh my, what is wrong with that?

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2012, 09:30:19 PM »

If Tom is making claims that defy the laws of optics (being able to see a beach ball at 30+ miles) then what possibilities should we consider?

I thought all this time it was a frisbee game.  Anyway, back to the preconcluded conclusion, I start out to determine if Markjo is a liar.  I have compiled this list of possibilities:

He is either (1.)telling a whopper or he is (2.) a perjurer.  Ergo he is a liar. 

Oh my, what is wrong with that?
FSM. You attack a straw man. markjo never claimed that he did not consider that Tom Bishop was telling the truth. Do pay attention please.

Oh, and I chose a beach ball for the obvious reason, giving Tom Bishop the benefit of the largest object you would expect to see at the beach. That's right, I assumed the best case for Tom Bishop's claim.

Oh, he claims he saw the Frisbee at a distance of 33 miles, while I took the smallest distance across the bay from Google Earth at just 22 miles. That's right, I assumed the best case for Tom Bishop's claim.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #84 on: January 14, 2012, 09:33:39 PM »
I have compiled this list of possibilities:

He is either (1.)telling a whopper or he is (2.) a perjurer.  Ergo he is a liar. 

You seem to think that when I said he is either lying or hallucinating that this was the basis for my conclusion, rather than two conclusions based on evidence. I ask again, did you look at the math?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2012, 09:51:28 PM »
Everything viewed through the atmosphere is visually displaced and would not correspond to simple mathematical predictions if this displacement factor is left out of the equation.  If conditions are agreeable, this displacement is enough to enable Tom is see exactly what he claimed to see.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2012, 09:58:52 PM »
Everything viewed through the atmosphere is visually displaced and would not correspond to simple mathematical predictions if this displacement factor is left out of the equation.  If conditions are agreeable, this displacement is enough to enable Tom is see exactly what he claimed to see.

Things are made bigger by more atmosphere?  So the sun should get bigger as it gets further away?

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2012, 10:01:54 PM »
Displaced now means bigger.  Whoda thunk?

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2012, 10:05:22 PM »
Everything viewed through the atmosphere is visually displaced and would not correspond to simple mathematical predictions if this displacement factor is left out of the equation.  If conditions are agreeable, this displacement is enough to enable Tom is see exactly what he claimed to see.
And that would special pleading, calling on magic to solve a problem between FET and reality.

Do tell us the math behind your wild, outlandish claim. I have to wonder how would everything fit uniquely into this magically magnified 3000 times view.

As Orbis so intellectually asks, why isn't the Sun at the horizon more than 3000 times larger since we see it through even more atmosphere?

Maybe you want to claim fairies at work again?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: The sun doesn't work as a spotlight
« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2012, 10:06:27 PM »
Displaced now means bigger.  Whoda thunk?
You are so right to question yourself. How would this displacement possibly explain Tom Bishop's 3000 times magnified view?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 10:09:43 PM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards