Revised: concave and convex spotlight

  • 42 Replies
  • 9359 Views
?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« on: January 17, 2012, 09:41:02 PM »
when high altitude photographs are taken and people point out that they can see the curve of the planet the general response is that what the observer sees is the area where the suns light reaches and we are infact looking at the illuminated area of the earth. beyond the light are just parts of the earth that are not visible because that is where it is night.

figure 1. high altitude photo taken in the day



as we can see here the illuminated area has an edge that is convex in shape as expected. this is because the light from the sun works like it does in figure 2.

figure 2. artists impression of the light shining on a flat earth



that is where the term spotlight sun comes from. it is not to be taken litterally but its just the term used to explain that the sun illuminates a round area just like a spotlight does.

figure 3. dawn photo taken from a high altitude



however in figure 3 we now see the light from another angle and now it looks as if the shadow is convex and the 'spotlight' is concave in shape.
as sunrises and sunsets happen simultaneously we must concluse that the spotlight effect is both concave and convex at the same time depending where the observer is.
 we also observer the same thing on the moon and possibly other celestial bodies, but i have not witnessed these myself.
 the experiment can be repeated using a sphere of any size using a direct light source pointing and one half of the sphere. when the observer walks arround the sphere they can observe that the light observed from directly behind it casts a convex shape, but if the observer walks round and observes the area where the sphere is mostly in shadow and only a thin area of light is allowed to be seen they will observe that the shadow is now convex and the light has become concave on its outer edge. this is roughly drawn in figure 3.

figure 3. artists impression of simulated day and sunrise as observed from a high altitude.



the real life images used are from a satellite or as some will say a NASA high altitude plane disguised as a satellite. either was the same pictures can be seen from weather balloons. these pictures are chosen as they show what im trying to discribe quite clearly and high altitude aircraft or weather balloons tend to still have haze distorting the far edge of the visible earth because of the atmosphere.
i have yet to come up with any conclusions as of yet but so far the only time i have been able to reproduce the phenomenon is when i have used a sphere are a test model.
another way to check the results would be to launch my own balloon and not the area that is furthest from view. then check the times beyond that and calculate where the light terminator actually is. but i do not have the means unfortunately.

Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2012, 10:11:17 PM »
when high altitude photographs are taken and people point out that they can see the curve of the planet the general response is that what the observer sees is the area where the suns light reaches and we are infact looking at the illuminated area of the earth. beyond the light are just parts of the earth that are not visible because that is where it is night.
You're too kind. You made your point well enough the first time. You've made a clear case for the FEers to answer. Good job!

I've always challenged the FEers to tell us how the curve appears at the RET-predicted location and angle while FET just mumbles. Your attack here is better and well presented.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2012, 07:16:38 AM »
Any Zetetic will tell you the sun is not a spotlight.
Please ignore this in the FAQ, i dont know who wrote it,
but they were not using the Zetetic Method,
also ignore anything to do with a massive conspiracy, also not Zetetic.

Thank you for your post, if we get enough outcry, the powers that be here will remove it.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2012, 09:32:40 AM »
Any Zetetic will tell you the sun is not a spotlight.

You clearly didn't read the post:

that is where the term spotlight sun comes from. it is not to be taken litterally but its just the term used to explain that the sun illuminates a round area just like a spotlight does.

The OP never contradicted your assertion that the sun is a sphere rather than a literal spotlight.

Do you deny the assertion that the sun only illuminates round areas? Yes or no.
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.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2012, 02:32:32 PM »


that is where the term spotlight sun comes from. it is not to be taken litterally but its just the term used to explain that the sun illuminates a round area just like a spotlight does.


you clearly didnt read the whole post at all... again the only comment about it wasnt even really relevent. if you read the title you can then see what the post is about. feel free to add your comments on the actual post

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2012, 11:03:37 PM »
so no opinions at all. i was eagerly awaiting the usual comments but i havnt even had one of those. isnt this proof of bendy light atleast? would seem the only real explanation if the light was shining on a disc. dam now im even debating with myself. what a looser... : /

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2012, 11:06:47 PM »
You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2012, 11:47:38 PM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65
Quote
Mission Statement

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature.

You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2012, 12:19:02 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65
Quote
Mission Statement

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature.

You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?
And how does his post fit the mission statement?
It doesn't promote nor initiate discussion of the Flat Earth theory, nor does it archive Flat Earth literature.
Again with the mindless attacking, zarg! You should consider renaming your profile to zerg!
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2012, 01:05:11 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65
Quote
Mission Statement

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature.

You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?
And how does his post fit the mission statement?
It doesn't promote nor initiate discussion of the Flat Earth theory, nor does it archive Flat Earth literature.
Again with the mindless attacking, zarg! You should consider renaming your profile to zerg!

firstly reguardless of what others have said this is not an attack on anything. i wanted to discuss what is observable and how this is applied to FET. perhaps PP you will be willing to provide some of your own thoughts on the subject? do you really think it is caused due to bendy light or refraction? can you perform an experiment for this? i was also thinking of thorks whirlpool theory too.


"You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?"

isnt this an area for debate? also what does your statement imply? what is the answer that i already know? i think i may have the answer as this experiment can be duplicated using a sphere very easily. but i thought my findings were thought provoking atleast.

i believe the lack of witty remarks from the fes may imply that there isnt an answer to concave and convex spotlights, thats fine. worth some serious disscusion though dont you think?

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2012, 01:12:38 AM »
do you think figure 3 could be an effect similar to this?



if you look at the image for a few moments you will see what i mean. the 'spotlight' is at a great distance so it would look very thin. would it not?

edit* i didnt explain that very well. what i mean is figure 3 almost looks like its curve bends both ways perhaps?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 01:15:25 AM by squevil »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2012, 01:34:41 AM »
firstly reguardless of what others have said this is not an attack on anything. i wanted to discuss what is observable and how this is applied to FET. perhaps PP you will be willing to provide some of your own thoughts on the subject? do you really think it is caused due to bendy light or refraction? can you perform an experiment for this? i was also thinking of thorks whirlpool theory too.
Personally, I support the belief that the area illuminated by the sun is many times the size of the Earth, kind of like this:

This is absolutely not to scale. Just an illustration of the concept. With the right scaling, the lit area is quite similar to just half the Earth, and the dark area on the Earth is concave. That seems to be consistent with most pictures I've seen. It makes for some inconsistency with RET, but RET should not be assumed as default.

"You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?"

isnt this an area for debate? also what does your statement imply? what is the answer that i already know? i think i may have the answer as this experiment can be duplicated using a sphere very easily. but i thought my findings were thought provoking atleast.
As you said, it is likely a proof of bendy light. Sorry if I seemed aggressive, it just looked like you're trying to bait people into something here.

i believe the lack of witty remarks from the fes may imply that there isnt an answer to concave and convex spotlights, thats fine. worth some serious disscusion though dont you think?
It could be a nice topic, but the discussion should probably be more specific. I would imagine you're getting no answers because it's hard to tell what exactly you're asking. You seem to be saying that the apparent shape of the Sun would have to do with how it illuminates the Earth, but I see no reason why you'd say that.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2012, 01:41:48 AM »
Personally, I support the belief that the area illuminated by the sun is many times the size of the Earth, kind of like this:

This is absolutely not to scale. Just an illustration of the concept. With the right scaling, the lit area is quite similar to just half the Earth, and the dark area on the Earth is concave. That seems to be consistent with most pictures I've seen. It makes for some inconsistency with RET, but RET should not be assumed as default.
Please do tell us what pictures your model is consistent with. For example, do you have any pictures taken in the Arctic Circle in December?
Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
If so, can you explain how the area of the Earth inside the Antarctic Circle receives little or no illumination in June?
If not, please provide the map you use to test your 'belief'. Thanks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2012, 02:37:31 AM »
Please do tell us what pictures your model is consistent with.
I'm sorry, but I can't do it, because I haven't taken your remedial course in using the search function yet. You, however, seem to be quite proficient in the technique. An exercise for the reader.

For example, do you have any pictures taken in the Arctic Circle in December?
I don't personally have any, but with this model I would imagine the Arctic circle to be mostly, if not completely, illuminated. I've never been there, though.

Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
Approximately. I prefer a Polar Lambert projection, though. I'll find a picture in a moment.

EDIT: Here you go:


If so, can you explain how the area of the Earth inside the Antarctic Circle receives little or no illumination in June?
Of course. Orbits are elliptical, not circular. However, this is part of the reason why I support NASA's little Polar Lambert map, rather than Rowbotham's.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 02:45:50 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2012, 03:21:43 AM »
Please do tell us what pictures your model is consistent with.
I'm sorry, but I can't do it, because I haven't taken your remedial course in using the search function yet. You, however, seem to be quite proficient in the technique. An exercise for the reader.

For example, do you have any pictures taken in the Arctic Circle in December?
I don't personally have any, but with this model I would imagine the Arctic circle to be mostly, if not completely, illuminated. I've never been there, though.

Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
Approximately. I prefer a Polar Lambert projection, though. I'll find a picture in a moment.

EDIT: Here you go:


If so, can you explain how the area of the Earth inside the Antarctic Circle receives little or no illumination in June?
Of course. Orbits are elliptical, not circular. However, this is part of the reason why I support NASA's little Polar Lambert map, rather than Rowbotham's.
I see. You don't have any evidence. I think we're done with your model then. Please do stop back when you have done any science.

Oh, and you're wrong. Orbits are elliptical, including circular.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2012, 03:31:39 AM »
Oh, and you're wrong. Orbits are elliptical, including circular.
I see. You don't have any evidence. [...] Please do stop back when you have done any science.

You make this too easy.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2012, 03:42:13 AM »
Oh, and you're wrong. Orbits are elliptical, including circular.
I see. You don't have any evidence. [...] Please do stop back when you have done any science.

You make this too easy.
You first. Show that no orbit at any time anywhere is circular as you claim.

Here's the math for my conclusion: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41788
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2012, 07:23:59 AM »
Personally, I support the belief that the area illuminated by the sun is many times the size of the Earth, kind of like this:

This is absolutely not to scale. Just an illustration of the concept. With the right scaling, the lit area is quite similar to just half the Earth, and the dark area on the Earth is concave. That seems to be consistent with most pictures I've seen. It makes for some inconsistency with RET, but RET should not be assumed as default.

Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?
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: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2012, 08:39:23 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65
Quote
Mission Statement

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature.

You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?
And how does his post fit the mission statement?

squevil is not a FES member. Why should he be following the FES mission statement? ???  Do you really not see the point I was making, or are you just being a dick again?


It doesn't promote nor initiate discussion of the Flat Earth theory

Yes it does.
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.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2012, 10:39:46 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=65
Quote
Mission Statement

The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature.

You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?
And how does his post fit the mission statement?

squevil is not a FES member. Why should he be following the FES mission statement? ???  Do you really not see the point I was making, or are you just being a dick again?


It doesn't promote nor initiate discussion of the Flat Earth theory

Yes it does.

i am a member :)

@PP no i wasnt baiting at all. its pointless anyway, happens constantly. the post is all about the spotlight shining both a concave AND convex shape on the earth. but this depends where the observer is standing. it was just something i couldnt comprehend in FET and it was something worth talking about. it has nothing to do with orbits really either. we all know that from the earth we see the sun go round it. the the lit area and the shadows that im concerned with

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2012, 01:31:47 PM »
Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
Approximately.

No you don't. Stop being so misleading. Every time you post your map, you should include a huge disclaimer stating that you do not support the idea that Earth is a disc, approximate or otherwise. You use the same distance transformations as do the creators of the Lambert projection, and you use magic to explain why the distances can be the same as on a globe yet still map to a physically flat plane.
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.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2012, 08:15:44 PM »
Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
Approximately.

No you don't. Stop being so misleading. Every time you post your map, you should include a huge disclaimer stating that you do not support the idea that Earth is a disc, approximate or otherwise. You use the same distance transformations as do the creators of the Lambert projection, and you use magic to explain why the distances can be the same as on a globe yet still map to a physically flat plane.

take your arguement someplace else you are derailing a perfectly good thread with dribble

Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2012, 08:19:20 PM »
Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
Approximately.

No you don't. Stop being so misleading. Every time you post your map, you should include a huge disclaimer stating that you do not support the idea that Earth is a disc, approximate or otherwise. You use the same distance transformations as do the creators of the Lambert projection, and you use magic to explain why the distances can be the same as on a globe yet still map to a physically flat plane.

take your arguement someplace else you are derailing a perfectly good thread with dribble
zarg's point is on target. You're quite wrong to say 1) he's derailing the thread, 2) that this thread is good, and 3) his post contained dribble.
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: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2012, 09:43:31 PM »
Do you agree that the U. N. Logo map of Rowbotham is approximately correct.
Approximately.

No you don't. Stop being so misleading. Every time you post your map, you should include a huge disclaimer stating that you do not support the idea that Earth is a disc, approximate or otherwise. You use the same distance transformations as do the creators of the Lambert projection, and you use magic to explain why the distances can be the same as on a globe yet still map to a physically flat plane.

take your arguement someplace else you are derailing a perfectly good thread with dribble

Unfortunately PizzaPlanet's the only one who has attempted to respond to your OP, so this is the only track available to this train right now. It's not necessarily going anywhere promising, but it's not derailed.

The map argument isn't unrelated to the thread at all. You see, PP's claims about what is the true physical shape of the Earth are critical to his response to this thread because it makes a huge difference when you realize that the circle representing Earth's surface in his sunlight diagram is actually what he claims to be an optical illusion and not a physical object upon which light can shine. Not to mention the whole concept is completely incompatible with the bizarro bendy sun theory he uses to explain the disc-Earth optical illusion in the first place.
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.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2012, 10:52:20 PM »
it wont go anywhere will it, we all know it because none of the real believers in FET bother posting up here

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2012, 11:11:39 PM »
Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?
In the middle of the lit area, wherever that would be.

Also, zerg is getting it backwards - he thinks the Earth is a sphere that looks like a disk, when it's more or less the exact opposite. He also thinks my magic (which is elementary optics, merely with the inclusion of bendy light) is "worse" than his magic (universal gravitation, a magical theoretical force that for some reason is taught as if it were proven). Let's just stick to the topic and hope he trolls elsewhere.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 11:15:29 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2012, 01:00:34 AM »
Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?
In the middle of the lit area, wherever that would be.

Also, zerg is getting it backwards - he thinks the Earth is a sphere that looks like a disk, when it's more or less the exact opposite. He also thinks my magic (which is elementary optics, merely with the inclusion of bendy light) is "worse" than his magic (universal gravitation, a magical theoretical force that for some reason is taught as if it were proven). Let's just stick to the topic and hope he trolls elsewhere.

Gravity is readily visible.  We may not have an explanation for why mass distorts the universe around it, but we know that it does.  Gravity is not theoretical, its just not fully understood.  But we use it to fly our space ships,  we use it to make accurate predictions for many things.  Gravity as a theory works well, in fact its never been proven false.  We just keep changing our theory of how it does what it does.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2012, 04:58:26 AM »
Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?
In the middle of the lit area, wherever that would be.
I thought that even the FE theorists, (certainly Rowbotham) accepted that the Sun is always in the zenith of some place on Earth. In fact, all ideas of bendy light until now accept that when sunlight comes from the zenith it comes vertically down, without bending.

In this diagram it is perfectly clear that the Sun will appear to be very close or (if you believe in bendy light) under the horizon for everyone on Earth. But I can tell you, since I live close to the Equator, that the Sun passes close to the zenith at noon every day. Every day that I look it is up there, and any day that the Sun were close to the horizon at noon the long shadows would be quite evident.

As always, every new "theory" from these people creates more problems than it solves, and in cases like this one it does not even solve anything.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41788
Re: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2012, 06:51:00 AM »
Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?
In the middle of the lit area, wherever that would be.
Which means that it's not above the equator where it is observed every equinox, correct?

Gravity is readily visible. 

No.  The effects of gravity are readily visible.  Gravity itself is quite elusive.
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: Revised: concave and convex spotlight
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2012, 09:33:17 AM »
Also, zerg is getting it backwards - he thinks the Earth is a sphere that looks like a disk, when it's more or less the exact opposite.

No, you don't claim Earth is a disk, you claim it looks like one. Explain how Earth can be physically shaped like a disk if S1 and S2 are equal lengths. You can't. It's geometrically impossible. Instead, you say that Earth is a magical shape that somehow manages to be two dimensional. You refuse to draw that shape.
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.