How are there timezones

please point that part out to me. all i see are people failing to understand how can light travel so far from a single source. you are wrong and just here to be the devils advocate. if you cant intelligently back your claims kindly go back to the gutter of the forums where you belong.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 08:18:26 AM

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 08:13:47 AM

The sun releases 400 million million million million watts of energy per second as explained by professor brian cox here. That would be more than enough to illuminate the entierty of the earths surface.

A watt is not a unit of size, but of energy. To demonstrate this, take two lasers (you can normally purchase toy lasers of varying wattage at a nearby department store). The goal is to simply get two lasers of separate wattage. Now, light the lasers up. You will notice that one laser does not light more than the other. This is because wattage is absolutely irrelevant to how much area a specific tool lights.

this statement is not correct. ive done this and they are very different. we had a 5 milliwatt laser and a 50 milliwatt and the 50 lit the dark room up lots more.

*sigh*  A watt is a unit of power.  Luminous power (flux) is measured in lumens.  If you look at a light bulb package, you will see both ratings, but the lumen rating is what tells you how much light is being produces, as opposed to the wattage which tells you how much electricity is being consumed.

Quote from: squevil on August 23, 2012, 09:16:57 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 08:18:26 AM

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 08:13:47 AM

The sun releases 400 million million million million watts of energy per second as explained by professor brian cox here. That would be more than enough to illuminate the entierty of the earths surface.

A watt is not a unit of size, but of energy. To demonstrate this, take two lasers (you can normally purchase toy lasers of varying wattage at a nearby department store). The goal is to simply get two lasers of separate wattage. Now, light the lasers up. You will notice that one laser does not light more than the other. This is because wattage is absolutely irrelevant to how much area a specific tool lights.

this statement is not correct. ive done this and they are very different. we had a 5 milliwatt laser and a 50 milliwatt and the 50 lit the dark room up lots more.

*sigh*  A watt is a unit of power.  Luminous power (flux) is measured in lumens.  If you look at a light bulb package, you will see both ratings, but the lumen rating is what tells you how much light is being produces, as opposed to the wattage which tells you how much electricity is being consumed.

But the wattage can give you a very good idea of how much light will be produced, especially if it's a bulb you're familiar with. So Markjo, I know you're good at this stuff, so tell me, take any two bulbs, I don't care if they're the same kind or different. Make one a 1000 watt bulb, and the other a 1 watt bulb. Will you be able to see the 1 watt bulb from as far as the 1000 watt bulb?

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2012, 05:37:34 AM

Quote from: squevil on August 23, 2012, 09:16:57 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 08:18:26 AM

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 08:13:47 AM

The sun releases 400 million million million million watts of energy per second as explained by professor brian cox here. That would be more than enough to illuminate the entierty of the earths surface.

A watt is not a unit of size, but of energy. To demonstrate this, take two lasers (you can normally purchase toy lasers of varying wattage at a nearby department store). The goal is to simply get two lasers of separate wattage. Now, light the lasers up. You will notice that one laser does not light more than the other. This is because wattage is absolutely irrelevant to how much area a specific tool lights.

this statement is not correct. ive done this and they are very different. we had a 5 milliwatt laser and a 50 milliwatt and the 50 lit the dark room up lots more.

*sigh*  A watt is a unit of power.  Luminous power (flux) is measured in lumens.  If you look at a light bulb package, you will see both ratings, but the lumen rating is what tells you how much light is being produces, as opposed to the wattage which tells you how much electricity is being consumed.

But the wattage can give you a very good idea of how much light will be produced, especially if it's a bulb you're familiar with. So Markjo, I know you're good at this stuff, so tell me, take any two bulbs, I don't care if they're the same kind or different. Make one a 1000 watt bulb, and the other a 1 watt bulb. Will you be able to see the 1 watt bulb from as far as the 1000 watt bulb?

Your point is irrelevant.  I can make a 1000 watt light bulb that gives off very little visible light.   When you buy a vacuum cleaner, do you also assume that the one with the highest amperage rating cleans the best?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 05:45:40 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2012, 05:37:34 AM

Quote from: squevil on August 23, 2012, 09:16:57 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 08:18:26 AM

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 08:13:47 AM

The sun releases 400 million million million million watts of energy per second as explained by professor brian cox here. That would be more than enough to illuminate the entierty of the earths surface.

A watt is not a unit of size, but of energy. To demonstrate this, take two lasers (you can normally purchase toy lasers of varying wattage at a nearby department store). The goal is to simply get two lasers of separate wattage. Now, light the lasers up. You will notice that one laser does not light more than the other. This is because wattage is absolutely irrelevant to how much area a specific tool lights.

this statement is not correct. ive done this and they are very different. we had a 5 milliwatt laser and a 50 milliwatt and the 50 lit the dark room up lots more.

*sigh*  A watt is a unit of power.  Luminous power (flux) is measured in lumens.  If you look at a light bulb package, you will see both ratings, but the lumen rating is what tells you how much light is being produces, as opposed to the wattage which tells you how much electricity is being consumed.

But the wattage can give you a very good idea of how much light will be produced, especially if it's a bulb you're familiar with. So Markjo, I know you're good at this stuff, so tell me, take any two bulbs, I don't care if they're the same kind or different. Make one a 1000 watt bulb, and the other a 1 watt bulb. Will you be able to see the 1 watt bulb from as far as the 1000 watt bulb?

Your point is irrelevant.  I can make a 1000 watt light bulb that gives off very little visible light.   When you buy a vacuum cleaner, do you also assume that the one with the highest amperage rating cleans the best?

analogy fail.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 06:04:24 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 05:45:40 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2012, 05:37:34 AM

Quote from: squevil on August 23, 2012, 09:16:57 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 08:18:26 AM

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 08:13:47 AM

The sun releases 400 million million million million watts of energy per second as explained by professor brian cox here. That would be more than enough to illuminate the entierty of the earths surface.

A watt is not a unit of size, but of energy. To demonstrate this, take two lasers (you can normally purchase toy lasers of varying wattage at a nearby department store). The goal is to simply get two lasers of separate wattage. Now, light the lasers up. You will notice that one laser does not light more than the other. This is because wattage is absolutely irrelevant to how much area a specific tool lights.

this statement is not correct. ive done this and they are very different. we had a 5 milliwatt laser and a 50 milliwatt and the 50 lit the dark room up lots more.

*sigh*  A watt is a unit of power.  Luminous power (flux) is measured in lumens.  If you look at a light bulb package, you will see both ratings, but the lumen rating is what tells you how much light is being produces, as opposed to the wattage which tells you how much electricity is being consumed.

But the wattage can give you a very good idea of how much light will be produced, especially if it's a bulb you're familiar with. So Markjo, I know you're good at this stuff, so tell me, take any two bulbs, I don't care if they're the same kind or different. Make one a 1000 watt bulb, and the other a 1 watt bulb. Will you be able to see the 1 watt bulb from as far as the 1000 watt bulb?

Your point is irrelevant.  I can make a 1000 watt light bulb that gives off very little visible light.   When you buy a vacuum cleaner, do you also assume that the one with the highest amperage rating cleans the best?

analogy fail.

Please, enlighten me with your wisdom.

a light bulb lights, a vacuum cleaner sucks.

how well something cleans has to do with the person using it.

a light bulb lights, a vacuum cleaner sucks.

And rating a light bulb in watts has nothing to do with the amount of light it gives off.  Similarly, rating a vacuum cleaner in amps has nothing to do with its ability to suck.

But the wattage can give you a very good idea of how much light will be produced, especially if it's a bulb you're familiar with. So Markjo, I know you're good at this stuff, so tell me, take any two bulbs, I don't care if they're the same kind or different. Make one a 1000 watt bulb, and the other a 1 watt bulb. Will you be able to see the 1 watt bulb from as far as the 1000 watt bulb?

A compact fluorescent bulb will produce more lumens per watt than a tungsten bulb.  I'm not saying that there isn't a relationship between wattage and luminosity, I'm just saying that wattage is not a measure of luminosity. 

Getting back to what dragged this thread off topic, saying that the sun outputs x number of watts is telling you the total energy output of the sun, not necessarily the luminous output of the sun (which is a very small percentage of the total power output).

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 06:08:55 AM

a light bulb lights, a vacuum cleaner sucks.

And rating a light bulb in watts has nothing to do with the amount of light it gives off.  Similarly, rating a vacuum cleaner in amps has nothing to do with its ability to suck.

Agreed.

This thread is making me sad with the vast amounts of stupidity that are constantly leaking out of it.

This thread is making me sad with the vast amounts of stupidity that are constantly leaking out of it.

I think if we delete your posts, that will fix the leak.

This thread is making me sad with the vast amounts of stupidity that are constantly leaking out of it.

Agreed.  Also, you are free to point out any stupidity that you happen to notice.

All of Irush and Jroa's posts. Rather... stupid. A vaccum cleaner is not a light bulb.

All of Irush and Jroa's posts. Rather... stupid. A vaccum cleaner is not a light bulb.

that's true, although, It's not a turtle or a carrot, either.

I concur with Thinkingman about jroa and Irush.

All of Irush and Jroa's posts. Rather... stupid. A vaccum cleaner is not a light bulb.

And, wattage is not a measure of brightness.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 06:36:43 AM

All of Irush and Jroa's posts. Rather... stupid. A vaccum cleaner is not a light bulb.

And, wattage is not a measure of brightness.

Irrelevant.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 06:36:43 AM

All of Irush and Jroa's posts. Rather... stupid. A vaccum cleaner is not a light bulb.

And, wattage is not a measure of brightness.

Brightness depends on wattage, but varies dependent upon light source. The lower the wattage, the less bright it is. I know it's not a measure of brightness. I was actually the first one to agree it's not a measure of brightness.

Does this digression about lightbulbs really have anything to do with the OP? can we not at least get back to the point, instead of joining rushy in his derailing of a very relevant question.

Brightness depends on wattage, but varies dependent upon light source. The lower the wattage, the less bright it is. I know it's not a measure of brightness. I was actually the first one to agree it's not a measure of brightness.

Incorrect.  Fluorescent bulbs are rated with a Kelvin amount.  The Kelvin rating is mainly used as a rating for the color of the light, but different Kelvin ratings give off different amounts of lumens.  I can get a lot of different bulbs with different Kelvin ratings that all are rated at the same wattage rating.

Does this digression about lightbulbs really have anything to do with the OP? can we not at least get back to the point, instead of joining rushy in his derailing of a very relevant question.

Yes, lets.

Quote from: Megaman on August 23, 2012, 10:32:25 AM

Wow. You have no idea how light bulbs or brightness work.

I assume your lack of a specific explanation implies a lack of ability to explain yourself.

I think it has more to do with exasperation

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 23, 2012, 10:38:17 AM

...Therefore the Sun cannot be a simple spotlight.

When did I say it was? The Sun casts a "spot of light" it is, however, not a spot light. The two are very separate ideas.

the two grammatical constructions are different I agree.

Quote from: burt on August 23, 2012, 11:02:16 AM

I have no idea what an atmolayer is.

You breathe it every few seconds.

I beath air, not an imaginary concept.

Quote from: burt link=topic=[quote author=Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 11:21:42 AM

55551.msg1383704#msg1383704 date=1345744936]
Who said anything about magic?

You're an RE'er. You, by definition, believe in magic.

you are an FEer, you by definition, think I believe in magic.

Quote from: burt on August 23, 2012, 11:02:16 AM

What causes me, on a flat earth to not see it, when I look towards where it should be at night? what obscures it?

I have already answered this question.

not with any coherence.

Quote from: burt on August 23, 2012, 11:02:16 AM

My point is not that you can see through dense thick air, but that I can see stars that are dimmer than a sun from horizon to horizon. but yet, just somehow, my eyes miss something giving out so many watts from a light source giving light rays of 180* perceptibally (unless I am mistaken, the light would actually hit the entire circumference of the flat earth [though depending on its position will be dimmer in some places]. moreover  the light rays would not come straight down, they would actually fan out, because the surface of the thing giving it is curved and furthermore spherical, and, in your theory, very close to the earth.) not only that, no one else has seen the phenomena at night, either.

Starlight does not pass through as much of the atmolayer as the Sun because the Stars are much farther away than the Sun (and their light never enters at an angle). Why do each of you continue to use the term "watts"? You do know what a watt is, right?

the clause at the begining of this sentence has no real connection with the second caluse of the sentence when it comes to backing up your point. In fact this would make it even more wierd that we can't see the sun from everywhere on a flat earth all the time. unless you're saying that night and the sun do not really exist, it is only an illusion caused by either an atmolayer, or a dome with a hole in it.

If the earth if is flat then why are there timezones? Surely if the earth was flat the sun would either be shining on the whole earth or none at all. Anyone have an explanation?

Hi, sonya. have you seen kendricks sun map of the flat earth. if no, then I will be happy to direct you to the link. after which you could come back and question if the sun map is accurate. also it seems from kendricks map that the sun creats a spotlight, as rushy is pointing out. Rushy's explaination for this spotlight is that the "atmolayer" obstructs the suns light rays. I am not sure how this fits in with the other theory of bendylight though, I don't know if it is the same theory, a contending one, or another seperate theory that is merely invoked to get REers on a wild goose chase.

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 06:53:28 AM

If the earth if is flat then why are there timezones? Surely if the earth was flat the sun would either be shining on the whole earth or none at all. Anyone have an explanation?

Hi, sonya. have you seen kendricks sun map of the flat earth. if no, then I will be happy to direct you to the link. after which you could come back and question if the sun map is accurate. also it seems from kendricks map that the sun creats a spotlight, as rushy is pointing out. Rushy's explaination for this spotlight is that the "atmolayer" obstructs the suns light rays. I am not sure how this fits in with the other theory of bendylight though, I don't know if it is the same theory, a contending one, or another seperate theory that is merely invoked to get REers on a wild goose chase.

I'm gonna bet on the latter of the theories. But of course, keep in mind, there are no theories in Zeteticism, so all of this is invalid.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 06:42:13 AM

Brightness depends on wattage, but varies dependent upon light source. The lower the wattage, the less bright it is. I know it's not a measure of brightness. I was actually the first one to agree it's not a measure of brightness.

Incorrect.  Fluorescent bulbs are rated with a Kelvin amount.  The Kelvin rating is mainly used as a rating for the color of the light, but different Kelvin ratings give off different amounts of lumens.  I can get a lot of different bulbs with different Kelvin ratings that all are rated at the same wattage rating.

Umm... No.  The Kelvin rating of light bulbs has to do with the color temperature (coolness or warmness) of the light emitted, not the intensity.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 06:47:30 AM

Does this digression about lightbulbs really have anything to do with the OP? can we not at least get back to the point, instead of joining rushy in his derailing of a very relevant question.

Yes, lets.

Agreed.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 06:51:59 AM

Incorrect.  Fluorescent bulbs are rated with a Kelvin amount.  The Kelvin rating is mainly used as a rating for the color of the light, but different Kelvin ratings give off different amounts of lumens.  I can get a lot of different bulbs with different Kelvin ratings that all are rated at the same wattage rating.

Umm... No.  The Kelvin rating of light bulbs has to do with the color temperature (coolness or warmness) of the light emitted, not the intensity.

How does that contradict what I said? 

So, how do timezones occur on a flat disc? Let's get back to the point. I am of the opinion that there is no real answer to this question, but we'll see.

The sun is over different parts of the Earth at different times of the day.  What is hard to understand about that?

Quote from: squevil on August 23, 2012, 09:16:57 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 23, 2012, 08:18:26 AM

Quote from: sonyca on August 23, 2012, 08:13:47 AM

The sun releases 400 million million million million watts of energy per second as explained by professor brian cox here. That would be more than enough to illuminate the entierty of the earths surface.

A watt is not a unit of size, but of energy. To demonstrate this, take two lasers (you can normally purchase toy lasers of varying wattage at a nearby department store). The goal is to simply get two lasers of separate wattage. Now, light the lasers up. You will notice that one laser does not light more than the other. This is because wattage is absolutely irrelevant to how much area a specific tool lights.

this statement is not correct. ive done this and they are very different. we had a 5 milliwatt laser and a 50 milliwatt and the 50 lit the dark room up lots more.

*sigh*  A watt is a unit of power.  Luminous power (flux) is measured in lumens.  If you look at a light bulb package, you will see both ratings, but the lumen rating is what tells you how much light is being produces, as opposed to the wattage which tells you how much electricity is being consumed.

*sigh* try reading what i said before acting like an ass and derailing the thread again. irush said 2 lasers are no different, i said they were. that is all.

try sticking to the topic at hand where i was making irush look like an idiot.

I'm gonna bet on the latter of the theories. But of course, keep in mind, there are no theories in Zeteticism, so all of this is invalid.

Have you explored zetetic history it is fascinating. It culminates in Truzzi's work of the 60s, although I don't know if Truzzi heard of Rowbotham. Rowbotham and Truzzi are both zeteticist ( I am actually tempted to call rowboatham a pseudo-zetetecist, because of his belief in a Flat Earth), Rowbotham's zetetecism predates Truzzis revival of the greek pyrho's scepticism, which he renamed zeteticsm to distinguis it from CSICOP, in the 60s. Truzzi, after he bronke from CSICOP, released a few issues of a Zetetic journal.
 Here are the journals, put online for free, they are interesting, a bit like a mix between Fortean Times and CSICOPs journal:
http://tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZeteticScholars.html

Please read through them, zeteticsm gets a bad advocacy on here, especcialy with the whole  "theory is bad" vibe, this is exactly not what zetetecism is about, and this will put your perspective right.

Kendrick is almost a truzzian zetetic, though I emphasise almost.

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2012, 07:47:31 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 06:51:59 AM

Incorrect.  Fluorescent bulbs are rated with a Kelvin amount.  The Kelvin rating is mainly used as a rating for the color of the light, but different Kelvin ratings give off different amounts of lumens.  I can get a lot of different bulbs with different Kelvin ratings that all are rated at the same wattage rating.

Umm... No.  The Kelvin rating of light bulbs has to do with the color temperature (coolness or warmness) of the light emitted, not the intensity.

How does that contradict what I said?

Kelvins have nothing to do with lumens.