How are there timezones

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

if its so easy to understand can you tell me how does day and night work exactly? i have NEVER seen a valid explanation to something so, and these are your words, simple.

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.

*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 sure wish you would try harder to not be a jackass.  markjo was making a point.  The flat Earth does not revolve around you.

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.

*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.

Whipping a dead horse; can we please move on from the theme of the lightbulb, please discuss it in technology or some other forum.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:52:41 AM

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.

You are correct, of course.  However, different Kelvin ratings do in fact have different lumen ratings, while still having the same wattage rating.  Bringing us back to the point that wattage is not a measure of brightness.

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

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.

What is the atmolayer composed of? Is it the same as the RET's atmosphere?

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

That is exatly the point. I asked rushy about this, and he said the atmolayer stops it, but obviously the atmolayere changes transparency throughout the day, and therefore the sun would be preet clear at "night". asking the question seems absurd, because in RE model night is when the sun is not visible, ie it is behind the earth. and you can see quite clearly into the night sky, in a flat earth there would not be night. no matter if the atmolayer does or does not obstruct the sun, because it does not obstruct anything else. including the moon etc. unless the atmolayer is what creates "night" or whatever I don't know its nonsense.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

now, you have cleared up that we both don't believe the moon is brighter than the sun.

my point is this:

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect the moonlight more. so, how come we have night, and can see the moon but not the sun at this time? why does night exist? What obscures the sun that does not obscure both the moon and the stars, aswell?

edit: making it more robust.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:23:31 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

now, you have cleared up that we both don't believe the moon is brighter than the sun.

my point is this: whatever affects the sunlight would affect the moonlight more, so how come we have night and can see the moon but not the sun at "night" time? why does night exist; what is the sun obscured by that does not obscure the moon?

Are you saying that we always see the moon at night, or that the moon should be making the Earth as bright as the sun does.  I am sorry, but you are very confusing.  I suspect you to be drunk, but that is OK.

yes if the atmosphere is blocking the sun like that then surely we could barely ever see the moon as it is not very bright at all. also we see stars pass down the horizon.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:28:34 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:23:31 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

now, you have cleared up that we both don't believe the moon is brighter than the sun.

my point is this: whatever affects the sunlight would affect the moonlight more, so how come we have night and can see the moon but not the sun at "night" time? why does night exist; what is the sun obscured by that does not obscure the moon?

Are you saying that we always see the moon at night, or that the moon should be making the Earth as bright as the sun does.  I am sorry, but you are very confusing.  I suspect you to be drunk, but that is OK.

No, I am asking you a direct question.

What obscures the sun that does not both obscure the moon and the stars aswell?

jroa, I know you are trying to get a rise out of me by your incessant missing of the point and irrelevant accusations.

[Edit: missed the question mark - making it clear to jroa that it is definitly a question.]

No, I am asking you a direct question.

What obscures the sun that does not both obscure the moon and the stars aswell.

We only see the sun for a portion of the day.  We only see the moon for a portion of the day.  We only see any individual star for a portion of the day.  I realy do not see the point that you are trying to make.  Whether the Earth is round or flat, you only see anything in the sky for a portion of the day.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:36:11 AM

No, I am asking you a direct question.

What obscures the sun that does not both obscure the moon and the stars aswell.

We only see the sun for a portion of the day.  We only see the moon for a portion of the day.  We only see any individual star for a portion of the day.  I realy do not see the point that you are trying to make.  Whether the Earth is round or flat, you only see anything in the sky for a portion of the day.

then please explain how this works on a flat earth.

then please explain how this works on a flat earth.

Nice derailment, squevil.  You have been here long enough to have heard the answers many times, yet you keep asking the same questions over and over.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:28:34 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:23:31 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

now, you have cleared up that we both don't believe the moon is brighter than the sun.

my point is this: whatever affects the sunlight would affect the moonlight more, so how come we have night and can see the moon but not the sun at "night" time? why does night exist; what is the sun obscured by that does not obscure the moon?

Are you saying that we always see the moon at night, or that the moon should be making the Earth as bright as the sun does.  I am sorry, but you are very confusing.  I suspect you to be drunk, but that is OK.

If the moon is not as bright as the sun, then the atmosphere that has enough density to cause the sun to not be seen as it gets further away, should render the moon invisible, as well as the stars, which are like tiny dots.

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:33:54 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:28:34 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:23:31 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

now, you have cleared up that we both don't believe the moon is brighter than the sun.

my point is this: whatever affects the sunlight would affect the moonlight more, so how come we have night and can see the moon but not the sun at "night" time? why does night exist; what is the sun obscured by that does not obscure the moon?

Are you saying that we always see the moon at night, or that the moon should be making the Earth as bright as the sun does.  I am sorry, but you are very confusing.  I suspect you to be drunk, but that is OK.

If the moon is not as bright as the sun, then the atmosphere that has enough density to cause the sun to not be seen as it gets further away, should render the moon invisible, as well as the stars, which are like tiny dots.

Are you saying that refraction is proportionate to the amount of light emitted by an object?

I think he doesn't understand trignometric distance, jroa.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 09:10:40 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:33:54 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:28:34 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:23:31 AM

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:17:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 08:11:52 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 08:06:54 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 24, 2012, 07:57:03 AM

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

Because some of the light would still reach every part of the earth. Spotlight, spheroid, or giant lightbulb in the sky. I would be able to see it all of the time.

I see.  Because nothing affects light, right?  I suppose I can turn on my flashlight and shine it at the "ISS" and send them signals, right?

Whatever affects the sunlight would affect moonlight more, or are you saying the moon is brighter than the sun behind all that obscurantist atmolayer?

I don't follow you.  Why would moonlight be brighter than sunlight?  You are really grasping at strawmen at this point.

now, you have cleared up that we both don't believe the moon is brighter than the sun.

my point is this: whatever affects the sunlight would affect the moonlight more, so how come we have night and can see the moon but not the sun at "night" time? why does night exist; what is the sun obscured by that does not obscure the moon?

Are you saying that we always see the moon at night, or that the moon should be making the Earth as bright as the sun does.  I am sorry, but you are very confusing.  I suspect you to be drunk, but that is OK.

If the moon is not as bright as the sun, then the atmosphere that has enough density to cause the sun to not be seen as it gets further away, should render the moon invisible, as well as the stars, which are like tiny dots.

Are you saying that refraction is proportionate to the amount of light emitted by an object?

It's proportionate to intensity and focus. Are you trying to tell me the moon is a laser?

I think he doesn't understand trignometric distance, jroa.

So then the moon is brighter than the sun, but further away?

I think he doesn't understand trignometric distance, jroa.

Trig can be a hard thing to grasp, from what I understand.

It's proportionate to intensity and focus. Are you trying to tell me the moon is a laser?

Why would the moon be a laser? 

So then the moon is brighter than the sun, but further away?

I thought we already had this discussion.

Can we actually have some legitemate answers to our questions, rather then attempted ridicule and avoidance. trignometery is not evidence for anything, it is merely away to derive tautologies from abstractions.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 24, 2012, 09:18:32 AM

I think he doesn't understand trignometric distance, jroa.

Trig can be a hard thing to grasp, from what I understand.

Irrelevant thread of discussion.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 09:21:57 AM

It's proportionate to intensity and focus. Are you trying to tell me the moon is a laser?

Why would the moon be a laser? 

Why do you never answer questions?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 09:21:57 AM

So then the moon is brighter than the sun, but further away?

I thought we already had this discussion.

We had a discussion but it was not settled, you just changed the subject.

Quote from: burt on August 24, 2012, 08:36:11 AM

No, I am asking you a direct question.

What obscures the sun that does not both obscure the moon and the stars aswell.

We only see the sun for a portion of the day.  We only see the moon for a portion of the day.  We only see any individual star for a portion of the day.  I realy do not see the point that you are trying to make.  Whether the Earth is round or flat, you only see anything in the sky for a portion of the day.

you clearly don't see the point I am trying to make. so let me try an make it very clear for you.

I asked rushy earlier what obscures the sun, he said the atmolayer. then the conversation turned to why it does not also obscure the moon.

The above phenomenological explanation you have indulged us with above states exactly what everyone knows, but does not give us an answer to how the flat earth theory explains the phenomena. Whether or not you think that answer is worth it, does not detract from the fact that it is a very legitemate question.

these are subquestions:

1. if the atmolayer obscures the sun, why does it not also always obscure the moon?
2. what does trigonometry have to do with evidence?
3. why do you persistentley state truisms in the form of a phenomenolgical descriptions and avoid answering and explaining why a flat earth would account for it?

I think he doesn't understand trignometric distance, jroa.

 

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 09:21:57 AM

It's proportionate to intensity and focus. Are you trying to tell me the moon is a laser?

Why would the moon be a laser? 

Read the whole post, and it will make more sense.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 24, 2012, 09:21:57 AM

So then the moon is brighter than the sun, but further away?

I thought we already had this discussion.

Nothing was ever answered. If the "atmolayer" is dense enough to obscure the light of the sun, then we shouldn't be able to see the moon if it is 3,100 miles away, given that it's luminosity is much lower than the sun. So why can we see the moon still?

Obviously the Atmolayer obscures the Moon as well, as we don't see the Moon 24/7. Why do you believe that the Moon is creating special anti-refraction/reflection light?

Obviously the Atmolayer obscures the Moon as well, as we don't see the Moon 24/7.

you know what the next question is don't you rushy?

Why do you believe that the Moon is creating special anti-refraction/reflection light?

where is your evidence for this assumption?


sorry to frown on your argumentative decorum, but from now on expect quotes like these when you break decorum.

A GOOD ARGUMENT MUST MEET FIVE CRITERIA
There is a very clear difference between an argument and a good argument. A per-
son who makes a claim that is supported by at least one other claim has created an
argument, but it may not be a very good one. There are five criteria of a good ar-
gument. It must have:
1.a well-formed structure,
2.premises that are relevant to the truth of the conclusion,
3.premises that are acceptable to a reasonable person,
4.premises that together constitute sufficient grounds for the truth of the conclusion, and

5.premises that provide an effective rebuttal to all anticipated criticisms of the
argument.

 - Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer.


5 is what I am getting at.

RE'ers resort to meta-arguments twice in the same thread. I would say "Yet another FE victory," but as a personal rule I only proclaim victory once per thread. Otherwise we'd end up with hundreds of victories per thread and I wouldn't get an accurate victory count.