Space Tourism

The recent transit of Venus has disproved the idea that the sun's size in the sky is maintained by glare as it circles away across the earth-plane.

lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.

Having a wrong answer make more sense doesn't make it any less wrong.

Quote from: squevil on September 19, 2012, 09:06:31 AM

lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.

Having a wrong answer make more sense doesn't make it any less wrong.

indeed but im happy to support good ideas. im not lurking simply to try and shoot down fet. if a supporter says something of value i think the idea should be expanded. after all wouldnt it be better if the theory became tighter and then in time the faq was adjusted so it wasnt the joke it is today?
i think the point tom is making is perfectly valid if one did believe that the earth was round. the fact we dont support tom in his ideas is because we look at the other evidence and come to a different conclusion. however if stood alone toms theory stands true. 

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2012, 11:13:59 AM

Quote from: squevil on September 19, 2012, 09:06:31 AM

lorddave are you saying that there is no moisture in the atmosphere to cause the same effect?
tom is actually making quite a strong argument here for a change. it maybe the wrong explanation but it does make a lot more sense than the usual dribble people can post.

Having a wrong answer make more sense doesn't make it any less wrong.

indeed but im happy to support good ideas. im not lurking simply to try and shoot down fet. if a supporter says something of value i think the idea should be expanded. after all wouldnt it be better if the theory became tighter and then in time the faq was adjusted so it wasnt the joke it is today?
i think the point tom is making is perfectly valid if one did believe that the earth was round. the fact we dont support tom in his ideas is because we look at the other evidence and come to a different conclusion. however if stood alone toms theory stands true.

Tom not knowing the difference between transparent, translucent and opaque or the difference between water vapor and cloud droplets has nothing to do with RET vs FET.

i have seen you post this before tom. i have actually observed what you are saying with my own eyes and my own observations didnt match your theory.
this thread also demonstrated a big flaw in the atmospheric density theory;
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54253.msg1335518.html#msg1335518
its actually one topic that im interested in as far as fet is concerned. i have looked into it.

I looked at that thread and it seems to be a different topic concerning perspective, not the thickness of the atmosphere.

Incorrect. Fog is a cloud on the ground. The moisture in the cloud causes the light to be dispersed. That's why it looks blurry.

I believe I said that blurryness is a matter of granularity of the surface medium. For example; if the density of the fog and the size of the droplets were shrunk by an order of magnitude, the fog light projection from the car would be much sharper.

And that also fails to explain why the opposite is true: at Noon when the sun is closest its blurrier (or more amplified) than at dusk or dawn when it's much farther.

When the sun is overhead at noon it is shining through less atmosphere than it does in the distance at sunset. When the sun is far away from the observer it shines on many more molecules and atoms of the atmosphere to reach the observer, and thus makes a sharper image.

actually tom its also relevant to this topic as it shows that atmospheric density (for use of a better word) is not behaving in the way you describe.
you claim that light is halted in its tracks and thats why the light doesnt reach you. well that thread shows that it is false.

"Tom not knowing the difference between transparent, translucent and opaque or the difference between water vapor and cloud droplets has nothing to do with RET vs FET."

are you saying that the air is transparent then? also there is no reference to clouds here. we are talking about atoms in general. because the sky is not empty.
thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.

are you saying that the air is transparent then?

Of course it is.

thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.

What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?

Quote from: squevil on September 19, 2012, 02:58:31 PM

are you saying that the air is transparent then?

Of course it is.

Quote

thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.

What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?

you cant see forever though can you. even if the earth was flat. ALL mediums have a finite distance that you can see through.
transparency should be reclassified as its the thickness thats really relevant. i wonder if steel would be transparent if made thin enough, i would imagine it would, perhaps?

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2012, 03:46:11 PM

Quote from: squevil on September 19, 2012, 02:58:31 PM

are you saying that the air is transparent then?

Of course it is.

Quote

thats not a fair question really though. the more i think about it no medium is truely transparent. none that i can think of anyway. even glass blocks all light at some point.

What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?

you cant see forever though can you. even if the earth was flat. ALL mediums have a finite distance that you can see through.
transparency should be reclassified as its the thickness thats really relevant. i wonder if steel would be transparent if made thin enough, i would imagine it would, perhaps?

I think steel, even if only one molecule thick would still not be transparent as the molecules in steel are still fairly tightly packed, then again perhaps on an atomic level of magnification it could be. This is a rather intriquing idea

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2012, 03:46:11 PM

What definition of transparent does the ability to see through several miles of air not fulfill?

you cant see forever though can you. even if the earth was flat. ALL mediums have a finite distance that you can see through.

Since when is "transparent" an absolute term? 

i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.


yeh pythagoras it is thought provoking isnt it. its something ive not thought about before.

so to summarise is the air transparent or translucent? also over what kind of distances? at best it can be described as both.
i would say that for arguments sake that toms theory of the atmosphere blocking sunlight is probable. but i think that a very foggy day would surly demonstrate this better and make the area around you much darker. a good way to prove it would be to calculate the density of a thick fog with heavy clouds during daylight and the density of the atmosphere at twilight on a perfectly clear day. is such an experiment possible? surely good estimates could be drummed up? i wouldnt have the foggiest idea how

i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.

Transparency means that the medium is clear enough where you can see objects through it.  According to FET, as the sun appears to set, it is quite a few thousands of miles away from the observer.  Seriously, how much more transparent can a medium get than that?

i would say that for arguments sake that toms theory of the atmosphere blocking sunlight is probable. but i think that a very foggy day would surly demonstrate this better and make the area around you much darker. a good way to prove it would be to calculate the density of a thick fog with heavy clouds during daylight and the density of the atmosphere at twilight on a perfectly clear day. is such an experiment possible? surely good estimates could be drummed up? i wouldnt have the foggiest idea how

Fog and clouds are translucent.  They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them.  Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.

Optical density.

Quote from: squevil on September 19, 2012, 09:43:29 PM

i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.

Transparency means that the medium is clear enough where you can see objects through it.  According to FET, as the sun appears to set, it is quite a few thousands of miles away from the observer.  Seriously, how much more transparent can a medium get than that?

If you've been following my arguments, the atmosphere is not transparent for thousands of miles. It builds up like a fog after 80 miles or so. The only reason the sun is seen is because of the fog light effect. The light catches onto the atmosphere and magnifies.

Fog and clouds are translucent.  They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them.  Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.

That's the fog light effect.

Quote

i would say that for arguments sake that toms theory of the atmosphere blocking sunlight is probable. but i think that a very foggy day would surly demonstrate this better and make the area around you much darker. a good way to prove it would be to calculate the density of a thick fog with heavy clouds during daylight and the density of the atmosphere at twilight on a perfectly clear day. is such an experiment possible? surely good estimates could be drummed up? i wouldnt have the foggiest idea how

Fog and clouds are translucent.  They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them.  Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.

then the burden is on tom to demonstrate there there are more particles between the observer at twilight than there is on a cloudy, foggy day.

Quote from: markjo on September 20, 2012, 05:32:14 AM

Quote from: squevil on September 19, 2012, 09:43:29 PM

i dont know if it is or ever was, a little light bulb appeared and i had this idea that nothing is truly transparent is it? and its fair to say that on the level that tom is speaking of the air is not.

Transparency means that the medium is clear enough where you can see objects through it.  According to FET, as the sun appears to set, it is quite a few thousands of miles away from the observer.  Seriously, how much more transparent can a medium get than that?

If you've been following my arguments, the atmosphere is not transparent for thousands of miles. It builds up like a fog after 80 miles or so. The only reason the sun is seen is because of the fog light effect. The light catches onto the atmosphere and magnifies.

Quote

Fog and clouds are translucent.  They do not let you see an object behind them, but they still let light pass through them.  Even in the thickest fog or most overcast of days, the sun's light still penetrates.

That's the fog light effect.

A translucent medium, such as fog, does not allow an object behind it to be seen distinctly.  This is not what I experience when I look at the sun near the horizon on a clear day.

I think also that the recent transit of Venus proved that there is more than 300 miles distance between us and the Sun and that 7 billion people in this world are right.

But let's ignore the facts!  We don't want to be sheeple!

The index of refraction for Air is only slightly above 1. (1.0003).

1 is a vacuum.
This means that air is only slightly denser (optically) than nothing.  How far can one see light do you think?

Light is moving at 300,000km/s, a few air paticles isn't going to just stop it. It gets diffused, but it wont stop, light never stops. This is why, even hours after the sun sets, you can still see some light in the sky. If it just stopped because "air isn't transparent after 80 miles," then you've couldn't see this light.

If you've been following my arguments, the atmosphere is not transparent for thousands of miles. It builds up like a fog after 80 miles or so. The only reason the sun is seen is because of the fog light effect. The light catches onto the atmosphere and magnifies.

This statement contradicts itself, and we've had this discussion before. Something cannot diffuse and magnify light at the same time. If the atmosphere built up like a fog after 80 miles or so, then all you would see of any lights, including the sun, would be a hazy glare, especially when the sun was near the horizon. What exactly do you mean by "the light catches onto the atmosphere?"

The index of refraction for Air is only slightly above 1. (1.0003).

1 is a vacuum.
This means that air is only slightly denser (optically) than nothing.  How far can one see light do you think?

80 miles at sea level. It really depends on conditions. The area around New York is so polluted that visibility is under 25 miles. Contrarily, people have reported making out the outlines of distant mountains 100 - 150 miles away from the top of Mt. Everest. But the thinness of the atmosphere is different up there.

I don't understand what you're getting act with the index of refraction. That's not being discussed.

This statement contradicts itself, and we've had this discussion before. Something cannot diffuse and magnify light at the same time. If the atmosphere built up like a fog after 80 miles or so, then all you would see of any lights, including the sun, would be a hazy glare, especially when the sun was near the horizon. What exactly do you mean by "the light catches onto the atmosphere?"

200 feet of fog may block out the light of a car behind it, but when that car turns on its headlights the light will permeate the fog. The light has caught onto the atmosphere and can travel further than normal light rays, in addition to magnifying its size. This is what the sun does, albeit on a larger scale.

The light is scattered in the fog example because the granularity of the surface medium is dispersed at such a close range. In the case of the sun, there are many more molecules to shine upon, as the sun is thousands of miles away. This results in a higher resolution and sharper image.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 20, 2012, 07:01:21 PM

The index of refraction for Air is only slightly above 1. (1.0003).

1 is a vacuum.
This means that air is only slightly denser (optically) than nothing.  How far can one see light do you think?

80 miles at sea level. It really depends on conditions. The area around New York is so polluted that visibility is under 25 miles. Contrarily, people have reported making out the outlines of distant mountains 100 - 150 miles away from the top of Mt. Everest. But the thinness of the atmosphere is different up there.

I don't understand what you're getting act with the index of refraction. That's not being discussed.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on September 21, 2012, 05:55:58 AM

This statement contradicts itself, and we've had this discussion before. Something cannot diffuse and magnify light at the same time. If the atmosphere built up like a fog after 80 miles or so, then all you would see of any lights, including the sun, would be a hazy glare, especially when the sun was near the horizon. What exactly do you mean by "the light catches onto the atmosphere?"

200 feet of fog may block out the light of a car behind it, but when that car turns on its headlights the light will permeate the fog. The light has caught onto the atmosphere and can travel further than normal light rays, in addition to magnifying its size. This is what the sun does, albeit on a larger scale.

The light is scattered in the fog example because the granularity of the surface medium is dispersed at such a close range. In the case of the sun, there are many more molecules to shine upon, as the sun is thousands of miles away. This results in a higher resolution and sharper image.

The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it. That's what causes the light to look more spread out. The actual light source does not look any bigger, in fact you can hardly see the source because of the glare. You will notice this if you look at the sun through the clouds. The atmosphere is transparent, there is no glare from air. And it certainly does not magnify anything. It simply diffuses the light only slightly.

The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it.

The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.

Sounds like it's you who needs to research before posting.

Quote

The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it.

The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.

Sounds like it's you who needs to research before posting.

Dispersing is not magnifying. Magnification makes an object appear larger by focusing light. Fog does not focus light, disperses, or diffuses the light. This means, in case you don't have a dictionary handy, that the light gets scattered or spread out, causing less of it to reach your eye directly from the source. Some may reach your eye after bouncing a bit, and this is what we know as glare and refraction. None of those things magnify anything.

Dispersing is not magnifying. Magnification makes an object appear larger by focusing light.

This is incorrect. Magnification does not occur through focusing light. It occurs by spreading it outwards

Fog does not focus light, disperses, or diffuses the light. This means, in case you don't have a dictionary handy, that the light gets scattered or spread out, causing less of it to reach your eye directly from the source. Some may reach your eye after bouncing a bit, and this is what we know as glare and refraction. None of those things magnify anything.

Dispersion simply means to spread outwards.

dis·per·sion/disˈpərZHən/
Noun:
1.The action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area.
2.The state of being dispersed over a wide area.

When light is spread out over a wide area by something it magnifies the image. It's not a terribly difficult concept to grasp.

Quote

The is not how light works at all Tom. You need to do some research before you come spitting inanities out at us. Fog does not magnify light. It just disperses it.

The result of dispersion is magnification. Consider what the glass of a magnifying glass does: It disperses the light, causing it to spread outwards.

Sounds like it's you who needs to research before posting.

No Tom, the result of dispersion is a spectrum.  Consider what a prism does:
http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/light-XV.htm

The splitting of a ray into its component colours is known as dispersion of light and the band of colours is known as a spectrum.

Actually, it sounds like both of you need to get your terminology straight.

oh tom you were doing so well too. fog does not magnify anything. otherwise a light mist would magnify the objects behind the mist for a start. the light is simply spread out. maybe its time you made a new conspiracy thread, talking about things people have a perfectly valid explanation for is something you really struggle at.

Markjo, there are different definitions for dispersion. You are not correct because you found an alternative definition. I just quoted the definition I am using. Kindly scroll up.

oh tom you were doing so well too. fog does not magnify anything. otherwise a light mist would magnify the objects behind the mist for a start. the light is simply spread out. maybe its time you made a new conspiracy thread, talking about things people have a perfectly valid explanation for is something you really struggle at.

There is an apparent lack of basic science education on this forum. You might want to research the bolded in your quote. I recall learning that magnification is the result of light being spread out in elementary school.

Does a projector "spread the light out" to create a magnified image on a wall? Yep. Does a magnifying glass "spread the light out" to create a magnification. Yep.

Therefore, as is clearly evident, magnification is a result of light spreading apart.

Markjo, there are different definitions for dispersion. You are not correct because you found an alternative definition. I just quoted the definition I am using. Kindly scroll up.

Tom, I did not find an alternative definition for dispersion, I found the correct definition for the context of the discussion (optics).  Fog does not disperse light, it scatters light resulting in an effect akin to diffusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28optics%29

Markjo, kindly type "define dispersion" into Google.

dis·per·sion
noun /disˈpərZHən/  /-SHən/ 
dispersions, plural

1. The action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area

2. The state of being dispersed over a wide area

3. The pattern of distribution of individuals within a habitat

4. A mixture of one substance dispersed in another medium

5. The separation of white light into colors, or the separation of any radiation according to wavelength

6. The extent to which values of a variable differ from a fixed value such as the mean

Based on the context of the discussion does it follow that I was talking about Rainbows or does it follow that I was talking about light being dispersed over a larger area?