Sunlight right now

These FEr's seem to think they know an awful lot of something they don't even believe in... strange. Once again the round earth is supported with better evidence and proof; while the round earth has a guy with a terrible haircut (Irushwithscrvs) claiming to know so much of something with no proof. Looking outside your window isn't proof.

The Round Earthers only believe in bendy light when it suits them.

This has nothing to do with belief. We're not discussing religion, we're discussing science.

The problem with RE'ers concept of bendy light is that they would have you believe that the light only bends at the point of interface between two different mediums. In fact, light is always bending.

No, it does not only refract at the interface. Not accounting for the minor gravitational distortions the light would get from earth, the beginning of the refraction happens at the interface of the mediums. It continues refracting as it moves through the atmosphere. You can test this with a flashlight and a pool. Imagine the pool as the earth's atmosphere, and angle the flashlight as if the sun were setting. You may notice that the light does not strike the bottom of the pool as if it moved in a straight line.

Quote from: garygreen on October 11, 2012, 09:12:15 AM

I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand.  Light from the Sun is scattered in all directions by the atoms and molecules in the Earth's atmosphere.  These rays are also refracted as they pass from the vacuum through the atmosphere, and they continue to be refracted and scattered as they pass through different temperature and density gradients.  The ones that intersect your eyes form an image on your retina or whatever.

If what you described actually occurred, light of different wavelengths would refract at different angles and the Earth would have a terminator rainbow. I don't see rainbows at every dusk and dawn, so you must be incorrect. Dusk and dawn light still contains all wavelengths that are uniformly distributed.

Wake up earlier.



To be fair, that color pattern is caused by scattering, not refraction.  That's because twilight is caused by scattering, not refraction.  Refraction is fairly irrelevant.

This image is wildly inconsistent with the FET explanation for the causes of nighttime and twilight.

Notice how the RE'ers are now either ignoring points completely or making irrelevant one-liners "wake up earlier hur dur."

Yet another FET victory over the dull RET sheeple.

Notice how the RE'ers are now either ignoring points completely or making irrelevant one-liners "wake up earlier hur dur."

I followed that line with an image of the thing you said never happens, and then I made a cogent remark about how your inane focus on refraction as the supposed RET explanation for twilight is...inane.  It's not about refraction.  It's about scattering.  I made you a diagram that illustrates the concept accurately enough.

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14B.html
http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub/Amazing-Facts-You-Probably-Didnt-Know-About-Twilight

Notice how the RE'ers are now either ignoring points completely or making irrelevant one-liners "wake up earlier hur dur."

Yet another FET victory over the dull RET sheeple.

Point proven. I guess everyones a sheeple for believe that everyone wakes up in the morning and goes to bed at night.

These FEr's seem to think they know an awful lot of something they don't even believe in... strange.

I don't mean to derail the conversation, but why exactly would it be strange that FEers would know a lot about the RE model?  If I had never really examined the RE model, in detail, and seen its flaws, I would never have come to the conclusion that it's false.  In fact based on the traffic we get to this website it's abundantly clear that FEers in general understand the RE model better than REers in general do.

Quote from: FlatEarthFreaks on October 12, 2012, 03:23:26 AM

These FEr's seem to think they know an awful lot of something they don't even believe in... strange.

I don't mean to derail the conversation, but why exactly would it be strange that FEers would know a lot about the RE model?  If I had never really examined the RE model, in detail, and seen its flaws, I would never have come to the conclusion that it's false.  In fact based on the traffic we get to this website it's abundantly clear that FEers in general understand the RE model better than REers in general do.

Unfortunately I would generally agree with this.  But to be fair...you're average REer doesn't think about such things as often as your average FEer and there are a whole lot more of them...this generally speaking allows for a wider range of education (or lack there of) and taking majority thinking and concepts for granted without really understanding them.

And guys...seriously...listen to squevil on this one.  Why do you think he prances about like a 3 year old saying "I win!  I win!!!" without even trying to provide rational (let alone math) for how his model would work or how his model would create the coloration involved with a sunset etc.

It's like a more juvenile version of Levee.  Don't feed the trolls. 

i have been reading this still though. its just one face palm after another. i told you at the top of page 2 you are being trolled and you all got sucked in.

read my thread that i linked rushy and shut up and go back to the lower sump of the forum. you said back in september that you wanted the upper forum to get better. well do the society a favor then and gtfo.

Indeed. The disc had a large terminator, the ball did not. I used a compact disc and yes, I saw that you said "don't use CDs hur dur." I don't have any Earth-sized discs available to me, maybe you could check back later.

So the Earth is not a disk?  Otherwise, if you feel the Earth is a disk, you should have realized you actually do have an Earth-sized disc (if you feel you require something that size) available to carry out this simple experiment.

The Round Earthers only believe in bendy light when it suits them.

Refraction and such.  I just have a hard time buying the amount of bendy light required for FET.

Yeah, if you consider the horizon effect too minor to be noticed.

Due to gravity?  I don't expect to be able to notice that with the naked eye.

Due to refraction?  I've noticed it numerous times.  Watching the moon setting and flattening out into a dim line while flying over the Pacific was one that really stood out.

I photographed an expample of the refraction of objects over water and posted it not too long ago.  Even Levee posted an example of it recently.

Why is it people think light can't bend?  Light is energy and mass at the same time. Mass and energy is both effected by gravity. Gravity is not 2 dimensional, and it's effect is noted by mass differentials. The earth bends light as it comes into its gravity well.  The wave lengths of light are effected just like debris floating in space around other astral bodies. Since light is stretched very far very fast it is almost impossible to trap it by any known form of matter in a gravity well. This only happens with a black hole. It's safe to say the path of light bends when approaching dense matter in space.

An experiment to show this would be to take a bed sheet and suspend it. Place a baseball on it. Take a flash light and lay it on the edge of the sheet. Light will appear to curve with the bed sheet at the effected area of the baseball. That only shows gravity as a 2D model effected by a 3D model, so your observations shouldn't be taken literally.

It's also interesting to note that I believe Planck was one of the first physicists to suggest that light exists on a 5th dimension, therefore most of our observations in 3 and 4 dimensional aspects can be different from what is actually occurring.

Mass is something an object has, matter is something an object is. Although light is not matter. It has mass in the sense that energy is equivalent to mass, however it doesn't have any rest mass.

Mass is something an object has, matter is something an object is. Although light is not matter. It has mass in the sense that energy is equivalent to mass, however it doesn't have any rest mass.

I made an obvious error on my post. It should read light is energy and matter at the same time. You can't computate light without accounting for its mass. It exists as a wave and a particle at the same time.

Why is it people think light can't bend? 

Yes silly RE'ers. The Bendy Light Theory is one of the foremost Flat Earth theories.

I have a couple of questions about the Flat Earth theory.

1.) Do you believe that other planets and "heavenly bodies" (i.e. the Sun and moon etc) are also flat?

2.) If the Earth is flat, how do you explain that if I have a disc and a torch, no matter what angle I hold the torch at, how come the whole of the disc is always lit?

3.) If the Earth is flat, where are the edges? How is it possible to circumnavigate the globe?

4.) How do you explain pictures taken from outer space of the Earth?

I have a couple of questions about the Flat Earth theory.

1.) Do you believe that other planets and "heavenly bodies" (i.e. the Sun and moon etc) are also flat?

2.) If the Earth is flat, how do you explain that if I have a disc and a torch, no matter what angle I hold the torch at, how come the whole of the disc is always lit?

3.) If the Earth is flat, where are the edges? How is it possible to circumvent the globe?

4.) How do you explain pictures taken from outer space of the Earth?

These and many other questions have already been answered. Please read the FAQ and search function of this site. If you still have questions, open your own thread for one specific question at a time. This topic is about sunlight, keep your posts relavent to the topic.

Yes silly RE'ers. The Bendy Light Theory is one of the foremost Flat Earth theories.

We all heard the one where the light from the sun supposedly bends the more it moves away from the equator. 

But it doesn't exactly disprove what is being said about light bending around the round earth as it enters the atmosphere.

Quote from: Beorn on October 14, 2012, 03:55:12 AM

Yes silly RE'ers. The Bendy Light Theory is one of the foremost Flat Earth theories.

We all heard the one where the light from the sun supposedly bends the more it moves away from the equator. 

But it doesn't exactly disprove what is being said about light bending around the round earth as it enters the atmosphere.

Why would a flat earth property disprove a round earth misguided idea?

Why is it people think light can't bend?

Of course light can bend.  Refraction and gravitational lensing are well researched and are generally accepted by the mainstream RE scientific community.  It's just that FE'ers have come up with another method of bending light (Electromagnetic Acceleration) to explain certain phenomena that has not been well researched or accepted by the mainstream RE scientific community.  In fact, EA hasn't been researched all that well by the FE community either.

Why would a flat earth property disprove a round earth misguided idea?

You tell me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9nyt%C3%B6r%C3%A9s.jpg

Magic right? I see refraction and I see reflection but I don't see dispersion. What's going on here? Looks a lot like garygreen's impossible diagram...

In fact, EA hasn't been researched all that well by the FE community either.

Probably because it is bollocks invented by a devil's advocate that to my knowledge none of the actual FE community believes in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%A9nyt%C3%B6r%C3%A9s.jpg

Magic right? I see refraction and I see reflection but I don't see dispersion. What's going on here? Looks a lot like garygreen's impossible diagram...

That is because it is a laser. Please don't comment on something without knowing certain variables regarding the science of what you are discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

That is because it is a laser. Please don't comment on something without knowing certain variables regarding the science of what you are discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

I had a very good feeling you were going to post this. Please, tell me why refraction must imply dispersion with sunlight and not with a laser. A laser is nothing more than focused light mostly traveling in the same direction, and is perfectly fine for demonstrating what would happen for any individual ray of light - which in this case is to refract it WITHOUT dispersing it.

And I could just as well point out that your wikipedia article refers to lenses and not the atmosphere. In fact, this very wording - "It occurs because lenses have a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light" pretty clearly implies that not ALL material has frequency dependent refractive indexes. If that were the case why would they need to specify that this is a phenomenon specific to lenses?

But I think you already know all of this, you're just wasting my time with your worthless trolling.

I had a very good feeling you were going to post this. Please, tell me why refraction must imply dispersion with sunlight and not with a laser. A laser is nothing more than focused light mostly traveling in the same direction, and is perfectly fine for demonstrating what would happen for any individual ray of light - which in this case is to refract it WITHOUT dispersing it.

Please provide evidence that the laser contained more than one wavelength.

And I could just as well point out that your wikipedia article refers to lenses and not the atmosphere. In fact, this very wording - "It occurs because lenses have a different refractive index for different wavelengths of light" pretty clearly implies that not ALL material has frequency dependent refractive indexes. If that were the case why would they need to specify that this is a phenomenon specific to lenses?

It applies to all refraction, it uses lenses as examples. Refractive indexes change the angle of refraction based on wavelength. Try again.

Nope.

"In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of distortion in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point."

Why don't you start trying.

Actually why don't you just give up. Nobody is buying it. Even the FEers on the site see through you.

Nope.

"In optics, chromatic aberration (CA, also called achromatism or chromatic distortion) is a type of distortion in which there is a failure of a lens to focus all colors to the same convergence point."

Why don't you start trying.

Actually why don't you just give up. Nobody is buying it. Even the FEers on the site see through you.

Avoiding the point again, I see. Not only did you fail to provide any evidence that the laser is not a single wavelength, but you seem to think that refraction only separates various wavelengths based on lenses. I do hope you don't think that every time a rainbow appears a giant lens is responsible for it. The chromatic abberation article was linked so you would understand everything better, but obviously you're too thick to think about it that way.

You can't argue the point any more, so rather than accepting that I am correct and you are not, you just call me a liar. How pathetic.

Right, somehow you got that I said refraction only happens with lenses because you're sticking with this pitiful insistence that refraction = dispersion. I guess the two terms are just completely redundant, aren't they. Did I ever say dispersion only happens due to lenses? No. But the phenomena YOU linked to is not the general phenomena of dispersion but one specific to lenses. If you don't like that go change the wiki page because it says it in totally plain English.

Telling me I've avoiding the point. Please. That's the only thing you ever do. You pick at the tiniest flaw you can try to expose in anyone's argument while ignoring the massive gaps in your own. Only here you don't even have that. You claim that the atmosphere works like a prism (or like raindrops causing a rainbow) but you have nothing to back that up. Until you can even do that you continue to go on with nothing whatsoever.

What I will posit is that the atmosphere does have some level of dispersion, but it's absolutely nothing like a prism. How it works is that some percentage of blue light is scattered, while most other light is refracted uniformly. It's the scattering that makes the atmosphere appear blue, but only this only applies to a limited portion of the visible spectrum.

The funny thing is, you don't even need refraction like was presented in garygreen's diagram in order for more than 50% of the earth to be illuminated by the sun. Since the atmosphere extends several miles beyond the surface of the earth and since some of the light that hits it is scattered throughout it you will have light that goes through the atmosphere past the apex of the earth's curvature. Kind of makes these comparisons with lighting balls inappropriate, unless your balls also have atmospheres...

By all means, continue to ramble on in some attempt to hide your failing arguments. You fill your words with anger and insults, then leave them wanting for fact and evidence. Perhaps I have been deceived and you were the troll all along? Quaint. I won't be making that mistake again.

Quote from: garygreen on October 11, 2012, 09:12:15 AM

I don't see how this is so difficult for you to understand.  Light from the Sun is scattered in all directions by the atoms and molecules in the Earth's atmosphere.  These rays are also refracted as they pass from the vacuum through the atmosphere, and they continue to be refracted and scattered as they pass through different temperature and density gradients.  The ones that intersect your eyes form an image on your retina or whatever.

If what you described actually occurred, light of different wavelengths would refract at different angles and the Earth would have a terminator rainbow. I don't see rainbows at every dusk and dawn, so you must be incorrect. Dusk and dawn light still contains all wavelengths that are uniformly distributed.

Not so,

The sky is blue (generally) durring the day due to different wavelengths being more prone to scattering than others in the atmosphere.

When the sun gets strongly "off angle" and the light is traveling over longer paths a different kind of scattering occurs.  I'd go more into detail but its damn late.  You can wiki "sunset" and it goes into the different scattering types that occur.  I even think wiki at this point goes into some of the math and physics for the different scattering types.  Otherwise your local library should have a physics book and most of them cover this to at least some degree.

I think this is the experiment you were being asked to try:

http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/HOMEEXPTS/BlueSky.html
http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14F.html

and a host of other examples.

It's pretty straight forward, so is the math and reproducibility.  Not sure how we started talking about lasers and if they have a perfect uniform wave (they don't but they get close enough for most practical applications).  In a nutshell, higher wavelengths are more prone to scatter, thus when you get a sunset, the scattering filters much of the higher frequencies leaving you with the orange and red hues that blend outward with the blue to give you a purple go between region.

I really don't get what aspect of this eludes you Irush, but you seem to be ignoring a lot of what is being presented and that combined with making comments about "winning" certainly paints you as a troll.


On a side note, I am curious how sky color changes are explained in the FE model.  The RE theory for color shifts is pretty well backed up and repeatable both in math and simple and complex experiments and testing.  The FE model (from most of what I've read) suggests a "spotlight" approach, I do not currently see an easy way for this to account for the color shift due to a combination of the idea of a spot light and how close to the earth the sun is estimated to be (according to what I've been told on this forum).