The sun doesn't work as a spotlight

Quote from: Lorddave on January 07, 2012, 08:59:56 PM

Round or flat, you and I can not deny that the sun has less intensity at dawn and dusk than at noon.  It even changes color.  All because the light is passing through more layers of the atmosphere.
...
However, I'm too lazy and my physics classes are too far in the past for me to write up the science to prove or disprove FET on this subject.

This is where the lazyness for numbers betrays the typical FE'er. Of course the intensity of the Sun is less at dawn than at midday, and nobody is denying that. But look how much is the difference: you use almost the same exposure and aperture seetings in your camera for any time of the day from 1 hour after dawn until 1 hour before dusk, provided the climate stays the same. By contrast, in every model the FET has cared to present the difference in light would be about a factor of 15 to 20. That is, you would need a flash for outdoor photography one hour after dawn.

But any photographer will tell you that outdoor photography one hour after dawn, if you have direct sunlight, requires just a little bit more aperture or a bit longer exposures.

And if there is bendy light, the problem with the FE models is even worse.

Nice post, trig. I agree with you, especially about bendy light making FE models worse, not better.

Quote from: Lorddave on January 07, 2012, 08:59:56 PM

Round or flat, you and I can not deny that the sun has less intensity at dawn and dusk than at noon.  It even changes color.  All because the light is passing through more layers of the atmosphere.
...
However, I'm too lazy and my physics classes are too far in the past for me to write up the science to prove or disprove FET on this subject.

This is where the lazyness for numbers betrays the typical FE'er. Of course the intensity of the Sun is less at dawn than at midday, and nobody is denying that. But look how much is the difference: you use almost the same exposure and aperture seetings in your camera for any time of the day from 1 hour after dawn until 1 hour before dusk, provided the climate stays the same. By contrast, in every model the FET has cared to present the difference in light would be about a factor of 15 to 20. That is, you would need a flash for outdoor photography one hour after dawn.

But any photographer will tell you that outdoor photography one hour after dawn, if you have direct sunlight, requires just a little bit more aperture or a bit longer exposures.

And if there is bendy light, the problem with the FE models is even worse.

I don't know much about outdoor photography but such exponential changes are not overly uncommon in nature.

And Bendy light is a poor word.  Refraction is probably a better word.  After all, that is a very real thing isn't it?  A pencil sitting in a glass of water appears to bend does it not?  Would that not be a definition of Bendy Light?

And Bendy light is a poor word.  Refraction is probably a better word.  After all, that is a very real thing isn't it?  A pencil sitting in a glass of water appears to bend does it not?  Would that not be a definition of Bendy Light?

No, bendy light is not refraction. If light travels across mediums of differing density, it does refract in a predictable manner. Bendy light theory has to work, in order to match reality, even across constant density along the surface of the Earth.

Bendy light is indeed a better name, as it claims that light ray bend in a smooth curve.

I don't know much about outdoor photography but such exponential changes are not overly uncommon in nature.

And again you trip with all those pesky number problems. If you were better with mathematics you would not be an FE'er, anyway, so here comes a simple lesson:

Although exponential changes are common in nature, it is the FE model of a hovering Sun the one which requires light to diminish exponentially from midday to dusk, not nature.

On the contrary, it is in nature where we see a Sun of the same apparent size and about the same luminosity from soon after dawn until soon before dusk. And between the two competing models (and I am using the word "competing" very generously), the model that comes from Galileo and Kepler is the one that does not require an exponential reduction of light from midday til dusk (just as in real life) and it is the FE models the ones that require it (against what is seen in real life).

So in the quote above you are arguing for real science and Kepler and Galileo and against everything FES has to offer. Does it mean you changed sides?

Quote from: Lorddave on January 08, 2012, 09:29:26 AM

I don't know much about outdoor photography but such exponential changes are not overly uncommon in nature.

And again you trip with all those pesky number problems. If you were better with mathematics you would not be an FE'er, anyway, so here comes a simple lesson:

Although exponential changes are common in nature, it is the FE model of a hovering Sun the one which requires light to diminish exponentially from midday to dusk, not nature.

On the contrary, it is in nature where we see a Sun of the same apparent size and about the same luminosity from soon after dawn until soon before dusk. And between the two competing models (and I am using the word "competing" very generously), the model that comes from Galileo and Kepler is the one that does not require an exponential reduction of light from midday til dusk (just as in real life) and it is the FE models the ones that require it (against what is seen in real life).

So in the quote above you are arguing for real science and Kepler and Galileo and against everything FES has to offer. Does it mean you changed sides?

I'm not sure how to respond.
While it is true that I'm not on the same side as I was when I first came here, it's less of changing beliefs and more changing my purpose for posting here.

I am not an FEer.  All evidence at my disposal tells me that the Earth is an oblong spheroid.  I am, however, posting in a way to force you to question what you think you know.  What happens after that is beyond my control.

It is true that the apparent size is a problem for FET.  The idea that sticks most prominently in my mind as a possible explination was the lensing effect.

Consider for a moment what I said earlier about how something must be keeping the atmosphere contained as it is.  So in a Flat Earth this substance, force, or whatever is unknown and has unknown properties.  However it must be at least slightly denser than the atmosphere at it's current pressure to ensure that said atmosphere doesn't leak out in significant quantities as the air is pushed against this unknown thing.

We also know that various materials have the ability to polarize light, refract light, reflect light, and slow down it's motion.  One of the properties of a substance that refracts light is that it can be used as a lens.  Put a drop of water on a news paper and the light being reflected off the newspaper will seem to be larger.  In reality the light is simply refracting in such a way as to widen the angle of reflection.  This is accomplished by curving the surface of the medium.

Now, since the air, this mysterious other substance, and a vacuum are all different mediums that light could be passing through, it is not unreasonable to think that the light could be refracting in some way.  And if the Earth is a curved disk, then the air and mystery substance must also curve to match the shape of the disk.  Combine that with a large temperature and density change as well as composition change as the air get's thicker (ex: water vapor is more commonly found in more dense parts of the atmosphere than higher up.)
All these factors could create the illusion we see.
The curvature of the day/night terminator line seen on a daily basis is evidence enough that light must be hitting the Earth at an angle of some form.  Whether this is from a tilt in our axis or from some other lensing effect I can not say.

And Bendy light is a poor word.  Refraction is probably a better word.  After all, that is a very real thing isn't it?  A pencil sitting in a glass of water appears to bend does it not?  Would that not be a definition of Bendy Light?

As has been pointed out numerous times, atmospheric refraction makes light bend the wrong way to explain phenomena such as sunsets and the sinking ship effect.  Therefore another term is need to avoid confusion.

While it is true that I'm not on the same side as I was when I first came here, it's less of changing beliefs and more changing my purpose for posting here.

It is true that the apparent size is a problem for FET.  The idea that sticks most prominently in my mind as a possible explination was the lensing effect.

I am happy to learn about your current position. Any critical analysis of the claims done here is welcome.

The lensing effect would certainly solve a problem or two, but like so many FES claims it creates at least as many problems as it solves (in this case many more). This increase in apparent size would come with a corresponding decrease in luminosity, and this is a direct consequence of the principle of conservation of energy. You can see it in another way: if you look at the Moon with a telescope set at 20x the Moon will be so brilliant that you will have trouble seeing any details. But if you increase the power to 400x you might even have trouble because the image is too dim.

So in the case of the hovering Sun you already have a problem with the dimming Sun in the afternoon and with a lensing effect the problem becomes even worse.

And if you take into account that the exact same sunspots are seen by people in every place on Earth and in the same apparent place on the Sun, you cannot say that the borders of the Sun are brighter than the the bottom, or that somehow the Sun sends different light in different directions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 06, 2012, 11:54:14 AM

The sun is a sphere which shines light from all points of its surface. The sun's light creates a spot of light upon the earth, which is what we call a spotlight.

Tom, how can you apply the same type of light source to a differently shaped surface (FE vs RE) and get the same result?

Are you saying that a spherical sun will produce the same "spot of light" pattern on a flat Earth as on a spherical Earth? Yes or no.

One week and several posts later... still no answer to this most basic question.

2 quick points:
1. high altitude photos from ballons wouldnt show the lit disk at that hight, you wouldnt see any darkness.
2. TB's pictures show sunlight at the horizon in all 3 pictures. you cant see stars in daylight.

2 quick points:
1. high altitude photos from ballons wouldnt show the lit disk at that hight, you wouldnt see any darkness.
2. TB's pictures show sunlight at the horizon in all 3 pictures. you cant see stars in daylight.

1. Math?
2. So?

Quote from: squevil on January 12, 2012, 05:17:52 PM

2 quick points:
1. high altitude photos from ballons wouldnt show the lit disk at that hight, you wouldnt see any darkness.
2. TB's pictures show sunlight at the horizon in all 3 pictures. you cant see stars in daylight.

1. Math?
2. So?

i think your confused, its ok

Quote from: ClockTower on January 12, 2012, 06:30:43 PM

Quote from: squevil on January 12, 2012, 05:17:52 PM

2 quick points:
1. high altitude photos from ballons wouldnt show the lit disk at that hight, you wouldnt see any darkness.
2. TB's pictures show sunlight at the horizon in all 3 pictures. you cant see stars in daylight.

1. Math?
2. So?

i think your confused, its ok

Okay, if you need help, you can always ask for it.
1) Where is the math that led you to the amazing claim that high altitude photos from ballons wouldn't show the lit disk at that height?
2) Did you have a point you wished to make with that? I sure don't see what you're claiming.

my first point wasnt thought out so well. you would indeed only see the lit part of the earth. i was a bit confussed myself there.
i wonder (i have tried to find some) if there are weather baloon videos at night. when the baloon reaches a high enough altitude it should become very bright as if it just came out of the shadows into daylight. i also looked for high altitude planes at night before and couldnt find any either if it remains dark then we can conclude it cant be dark due to the atmosphere blocking the light.
my second point is still valid though. TB's photos ate long exsposure. correct? eitherway you can see in each picture that there is still light on the horizon. thats why you cant see any stars on the horizon in all 3 of his photos: you cant see stars in daylight.
but he does have a fair point still, i cant remeber seeing any stars too close to the horizon either, but i was just pointing out what was in his pictures.

my first point wasnt thought out so well. you would indeed only see the lit part of the earth. i was a bit confussed myself there.
i wonder (i have tried to find some) if there are weather baloon videos at night. when the baloon reaches a high enough altitude it should become very bright as if it just came out of the shadows into daylight. i also looked for high altitude planes at night before and couldnt find any either if it remains dark then we can conclude it cant be dark due to the atmosphere blocking the light.
my second point is still valid though. TB's photos ate long exsposure. correct? eitherway you can see in each picture that there is still light on the horizon. thats why you cant see any stars on the horizon in all 3 of his photos: you cant see stars in daylight.
but he does have a fair point still, i cant remeber seeing any stars too close to the horizon either, but i was just pointing out what was in his pictures.

On your second point, you need only consider two facts: 1) light pollution is worst at the horizon, washing out details; and 2) The Sun even at the horizon greatly outshines other stars. Cameras cannot such disparate lights in one shot.

Tom, in the following image, is light emitted by the "bottom" of the Sun blocked by the atmosphere of by the horizon?

You can clearly see that the atmosphere is affecting the bottom of the sun in that image, causing the sun to "merge" into the ocean's surface.

Answer my question Tom.

You can clearly see that the atmosphere is affecting the bottom of the sun in that image, causing the sun to "merge" into the ocean's surface.

Nope. You really do have to get out of this habit of thinking that saying something makes it true.

Answer my question Tom.

I've already answered your question. The answer is no, the area of sunlight would not be the same on a Flat Earth as it would be on a Round Earth. The earth is not round, it's flat.

Why you guys seem to believe that the daylight times are exactly the same is beyond me. There has never been any significant effort to monitor the activity of the sun through the year at many different points on earth.

There has never been any significant effort to monitor the activity of the sun through the year at many different points on earth.

Make this your mission

There has never been any significant effort to monitor the activity of the sun through the year at many different points on earth.

I would think that operators of the various solar power stations around the world would monitor the activity of the sun quite intently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations

The answer is no, the area of sunlight would not be the same on a Flat Earth as it would be on a Round Earth. The earth is not round, it's flat.

Okay, so what you're telling me then is that the daylight maps, like this one, are wrong. That means that high-altitude photos that include the day-night terminator must show it in a different place or having a different curvature than expected. Please provide evidence that this has ever happened.

Quote from: zarg on January 13, 2012, 04:03:32 PM

Answer my question Tom.

I've already answered your question. The answer is no, the area of sunlight would not be the same on a Flat Earth as it would be on a Round Earth. The earth is not round, it's flat.

Why you guys seem to believe that the daylight times are exactly the same is beyond me. There has never been any significant effort to monitor the activity of the sun through the year at many different points on earth.

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

Quote from: zarg on January 13, 2012, 04:03:32 PM

Answer my question Tom.

I've already answered your question. The answer is no, the area of sunlight would not be the same on a Flat Earth as it would be on a Round Earth. The earth is not round, it's flat.

Why you guys seem to believe that the daylight times are exactly the same is beyond me. There has never been any significant effort to monitor the activity of the sun through the year at many different points on earth.

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".

Quote from: zarg on January 13, 2012, 04:03:32 PM

Answer my question Tom.

I've already answered your question. The answer is no, the area of sunlight would not be the same on a Flat Earth as it would be on a Round Earth. The earth is not round, it's flat.

Why you guys seem to believe that the daylight times are exactly the same is beyond me. There has never been any significant effort to monitor the activity of the sun through the year at many different points on earth.

Funny, because there are very accurate lookup tables for every latitude on the planet, and have been since the days of sailing ships.

In the current model for a flat earth, the sun and moon are supposedly spotlights that circle around above the earth. This cannot be, as the sun looks like a circle in the sky no matter what time of day it is. As the sun rotates away, and my perspective changes, it should look like an oval in the evenings and mornings according to FET.

Please explain.

some people that believe for flat earth believe that the sun is not sphere
i dont know. check the mad scientist levee

Okay, so what you're telling me then is that the daylight maps, like this one, are wrong. That means that high-altitude photos that include the day-night terminator must show it in a different place or having a different curvature than expected. Please provide evidence that this has ever happened.

From the first line on that page:

"Watch the sun rise and set all over the world on this real-time, computer-generated illustration of the earth's patterns of sunlight and darkness."

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."

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.

Please see this article in the wiki for your question on why the sun does not shrink into a tiny dot as it recedes from the observer.

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.

Also, would you please tell us how you know that the Sun acts as a spot light creating a curved terminal? It seems to me that in applying the zetetic method and not having observed sunrise and sunset for an entire year from everywhere on the Earth's surface, you don't know that it does. However, you (and Robotham) have repeatedly claimed that it is. Is this another case where you publish an answer but don't say it's correct?

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."

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

Quote from: zarg

Okay, so what you're telling me then is that the daylight maps, like this one, are wrong. That means that high-altitude photos that include the day-night terminator must show it in a different place or having a different curvature than expected. Please provide evidence that this has ever happened.

From the first lone on that page:

"Watch the sun rise and set all over the world on this real-time, computer-generated illustration of the earth's patterns of sunlight and darkness."

Of course it is, Tom. Would you expect them to hire someone to manually update the image every hour of every day?

The fact that the images are computer-generated is irrelevant. Computer programs use data. The veracity of the data is what we're talking about here.

You think the data doesn't represent reality. Okay. I already acknowledged that that is your belief. Now answer the rest of my post:

That means that high-altitude photos that include the day-night terminator must show it in a different place or having a different curvature than expected. Please provide evidence that this has ever happened.

Or for that matter, provide any evidence that reality ever disagrees with this data.

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?