The suns pool of light on a FE

  • 61 Replies
  • 11995 Views
The suns pool of light on a FE
« on: February 01, 2013, 04:00:11 AM »
I thought I'd look at something to do with the sun on a flat earth that isn't "why can't I see it at night" or something to that effect.

Basically the pool of light created by the sun isn't a consistent shape and changes based on the time of year.

For the following I've used what I'd call the standard FE model with the North Pole at the center and the sun orbiting the North Pole at a fixed height but varying diameter based on the time of year. I've assumed that the sun in the model orbits at a consistent speed of 1 orbit per day, or 15 degrees of the orbit per hour.

I started by collecting the the sunrise and sunset times for varying latitudes for 3 times of the year 20th December, 20th June and 20th March.



I started at 80o north as the north pole really only experiences 1 sunrise and sunset a year and I only went down to -60o as there's not much land mass below this apart from the "controversial" Antarctica.

Please be tolerant of the following diagrams, I'm not very good with computer art programs and have been experimenting with CorelDraw and I'm finding stuff like the fill function tempramental.
So I started by plotting the sunrise and sunset times for 20th June. The pool of light, or should that be the area within which the sun is visible is the blue area. The circle in the middle is the arctic circle.



Next I plotted the times for 20th March, this was a nice simple one in comparison as the sunrise and sunset pretty much follow lines of longitude. Again the blue area is the pool of light created by the sun.


I was going to plot the times for 20th Dec but then I noticed that they're just the mirror of 20th June so I just moved the sun. Again the pool of sunlight is the blue area.


As you can see the area within which the sun is visible changes throughout the year and you get strange situations like the sun creating a straight line of day/night during the equinox or during the southern hemispheres summer the people south of the equator being able to see the sun rise and set before people north of the equator despite the northerners being closer to the sun.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 06:13:07 AM by Manarq »
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Tintagel

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 190
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels!
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 08:58:26 AM »
If these are accurate, then it would appear that closer to the edge the sun is, the more its light is affected by the aetheric wind beyond the edge, causing the light to spread and actually wrap around the disc.  Interesting. 

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 11:57:52 AM »
If these are accurate, then it would appear that closer to the edge the sun is, the more its light is affected by the aetheric wind beyond the edge, causing the light to spread and actually wrap around the disc.  Interesting.

Your aetheric wind theory is nonsense.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Tintagel

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 190
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels!
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 12:27:36 PM »
If these are accurate, then it would appear that closer to the edge the sun is, the more its light is affected by the aetheric wind beyond the edge, causing the light to spread and actually wrap around the disc.  Interesting.

Your aetheric wind theory is nonsense.

It isn't strictly 'my' theory, but your rebuttal is noted, and I disagree.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 02:27:05 PM »
If these are accurate, then it would appear that closer to the edge the sun is, the more its light is affected by the aetheric wind beyond the edge, causing the light to spread and actually wrap around the disc.  Interesting.

Your aetheric wind theory is nonsense.

It isn't strictly 'my' theory, but your rebuttal is noted, and I disagree.

You can disagree but you are forced to admit you have no independent evidence of this aether - you create it and its effects in order to explain problems caused by treating other parts of your world model as untouchable. As soon as you can present independently verifiable evidence of its existence, then you have the right to consider it not nonsense any more.
The swivelling disc earth model works far better.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2013, 04:47:45 PM »
what do you mean by "swivel?"

does it tip back and forth on an axis in its plane like a lid on a pitfall trap?

does it precess like a spinning top?

true wisdom is always concise

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2013, 01:03:54 PM »
what do you mean by "swivel?"

does it tip back and forth on an axis in its plane like a lid on a pitfall trap?

does it precess like a spinning top?

Yes. Its motions are complex.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2013, 08:43:32 PM »
neil, i appreciate your skill as a devil's advocate.

yet somehow i detect a faint whiff of satire.
true wisdom is always concise

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2013, 07:22:23 AM »
Any chance of seeing this model Neil?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2013, 01:08:15 PM »
Any chance of seeing this model Neil?

I do not have a physical model to present as an object, if that's what you mean. I also do not have the mathematical skills to present a formula from which predictions can be made.
Kevinagain, I assure you there is no satire. I am just as serious as the other FE'ers, I merely disagree with their specific model.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

nate5700

  • 242
  • Round Earth. Probably.
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2013, 01:27:36 PM »
I do not have a physical model to present as an object, if that's what you mean. I also do not have the mathematical skills to present a formula from which predictions can be made.

That's fine, but there are other things you can do. Is it possible to draw a picture that would at least describe the model in general?

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2013, 03:48:29 PM »
I do not have a physical model to present as an object, if that's what you mean. I also do not have the mathematical skills to present a formula from which predictions can be made.

That's fine, but there are other things you can do. Is it possible to draw a picture that would at least describe the model in general?

Certainly it is possible.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2013, 05:22:12 PM »
I have 3D software, and can build a model for you that follows your specifications, if you wish.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2013, 09:54:07 AM »
Aetheric Wind Theory is highly falsifiable and so far has held up quite well to scrutiny. It's predictive and falsifiable. More than can be said of string theory.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2013, 12:46:34 AM »
Aetheric Wind Theory is highly falsifiable and so far has held up quite well to scrutiny. It's predictive and falsifiable. More than can be said of string theory.
Then I would like to see any one prediction with actual numbers that can be tested through observation or experimentation. Please calculate, for example, the amount of light bending that occurs over a stretch of 20 km of sea, or the speed of the wind that causes the bending that happens during the Equinox to make everyone on Earth see the Sun due East at dawn.

Predictive power does not mean a nice excuse with a lot of words for every phenomenon that cannot be predicted with actual numbers.

And falsifiable means that you can clearly define an experiment that tests the validity of the model, and if the result does not match the expected result, the theory becomes nothing. I want to see the phenomena that make the Sun not change in size or luminosity from an hour after dawn til an hour before dusk and an experiment that shows something about these phenomena as the proof of falsifiability of this wind.

Finally, String Theory is not a scientific theory and it is not presented as such in any scientific publication. It is an hypothesis that, if true, cannot be tested with anything we can currently devise. Scientists understand this fact and accept the name "theory" for it just as a historic anomaly. Scientists are intelligent enough to understand that strings are an intriguing idea to study, not a theory like Relativity.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2013, 04:38:44 AM »
Aetheric Wind Theory is highly falsifiable and so far has held up quite well to scrutiny. It's predictive and falsifiable. More than can be said of string theory.

As RealScientist says, we want to see some data that would falsify your Aether. I don't believe you have any.
Bringing string theory into this is merely a strawman, of no relevance.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2013, 05:01:22 PM »
I like the convenient timing of this thread dying.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2013, 02:57:25 AM »
I was going to show the angle to the sunrise (whether it appears in the NE, E or SE) but I think I lost the will in one of Sceptis threads.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2013, 06:23:48 AM »
I was going to show the angle to the sunrise (whether it appears in the NE, E or SE) but I think I lost the will in one of Sceptis threads.

Don't worry--that thread goes about at noticed as this one. The formula never fails: ask a difficult question, and flat-earth advocates pretend not you hear you.

?

Jingle Jangle

  • 284
  • I breathe therefore I am
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2013, 07:48:43 AM »
But the aether does most certainly exist.  Even James Randi admitted to this just recently and he was a douche bag to all things paranormal.  In the book the Scole Experiments, it is proven to exist and most certainly it was not a hoax...  Do not disagree with science every time it disagrees with the status quo.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2013, 08:37:50 AM »
To say there is no "aether" is to rob so-called "empty" space of all qualities and properties. Its silly.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2013, 08:43:42 AM »
To say there is no "aether" is to rob so-called "empty" space of all qualities and properties. Its silly.

To say there is no aether is to say that empty space is not a substance or medium.  It is the lack thereof, and that isn't the question of this thread anyway.  I expect this from JJ, but as a higher up please set an example by staying on topic.
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.

?

pax

  • 61
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2013, 09:18:56 AM »
To say there is no "aether" is to rob so-called "empty" space of all qualities and properties. Its silly.

Are you talking about the well documented and directly observed properties of the interplanetary medium? The interstellar void? A theoretical 100% matter/anti-matter free vacuum - because not one of those requires "aether". See the wiki on the supposed medium through which light travels (if that's what you're talking about) for a fairly exhaustive list of conclusive experimental data, and the observable, proven alternative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether#Negative_aether-drift_experiments

If you have issues with Wikipedia - just check out the source material. This, by the way, is very basic 101 level physics in this current day. "Aether" is a long disproven relic. May as well tell us thunder is the result of Thor banging a hammer. Silly is right; it's down right preposterous.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16504
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2013, 11:18:56 AM »
There is a reason its called luminiferous aether and not aether - the refer to different entities. And a reason people choose to call it a "space medium" rather than aether - fashion.

In addition, the big bang model has snuck in an absolute coordinate system - which could just as easily have been labeled aether.

The discussion of whether aether exists is the discussion of whether space exists and has properties (such as permeability and permitivity). Calling it another name is nothing more than semantics. Space exists and it has properties. Aether wind model holders just think about said properties differently.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2013, 11:57:05 AM »
There is a reason its called luminiferous aether and not aether - the refer to different entities. And a reason people choose to call it a "space medium" rather than aether - fashion.

So what is your aether? If it doesn't affect light, then how can it be used to explain the behavior of light? If it does affect light then why wasn't it noticed in any of the experiments involving light?

Quote
In addition, the big bang model has snuck in an absolute coordinate system - which could just as easily have been labeled aether.

The Big Bang theory states that, at the beginning, the universe was so small that the 'explosion' happened everywhere at the same time. There's no central point where the Big Bang happened because that central point was, at the moment, the entire universe. Thus there's still no absolute coordinate system.

Quote
The discussion of whether aether exists is the discussion of whether space exists and has properties (such as permeability and permitivity). Calling it another name is nothing more than semantics. Space exists and it has properties. Aether wind model holders just think about said properties differently.

And we're still waiting for evidence that supports these light-bending properties of the aether. Or, as RealScientist said,
Then I would like to see any one prediction with actual numbers that can be tested through observation or experimentation.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2013, 12:28:53 PM »
But the aether does most certainly exist.  Even James Randi admitted to this just recently and he was a douche bag to all things paranormal.  In the book the Scole Experiments, it is proven to exist and most certainly it was not a hoax...  Do not disagree with science every time it disagrees with the status quo.

Please, provide links to Randi admitting the existence of Aether, and the relevant details of the Scole Experiments.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5130
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2013, 01:44:01 PM »
But the aether does most certainly exist.  Even James Randi admitted to this just recently and he was a douche bag to all things paranormal.  In the book the Scole Experiments, it is proven to exist and most certainly it was not a hoax...  Do not disagree with science every time it disagrees with the status quo.

Please, provide links to Randi admitting the existence of Aether, and the relevant details of the Scole Experiments.
The aether talked about in the Scole Experiments is different from the aether typically referenced here.  If I remember correctly, it was a spiritual medium.  You can find the experiment online through Google.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2013, 02:06:04 PM »
The aether talked about in the Scole Experiments is different from the aether typically referenced here.  If I remember correctly, it was a spiritual medium.  You can find the experiment online through Google.

I already have, but thanks.

Mostly, I want Jingle to support the claims that were made with a little more than just his say-so.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39593
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2013, 03:53:06 PM »
But the aether does most certainly exist.  Even James Randi admitted to this just recently and he was a douche bag to all things paranormal.  In the book the Scole Experiments, it is proven to exist and most certainly it was not a hoax...  Do not disagree with science every time it disagrees with the status quo.

But, has aether been shown to have the properties that FE'ers claim?
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.

?

pax

  • 61
Re: The suns pool of light on a FE
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2013, 07:32:41 PM »
There is a reason its called luminiferous aether and not aether - the refer to different entities. And a reason people choose to call it a "space medium" rather than aether - fashion.

In addition, the big bang model has snuck in an absolute coordinate system - which could just as easily have been labeled aether.

The discussion of whether aether exists is the discussion of whether space exists and has properties (such as permeability and permitivity). Calling it another name is nothing more than semantics. Space exists and it has properties. Aether wind model holders just think about said properties differently.

What a load of nonsensical re-writing of history. Aether is not (and never has been) a synonym for space; the Greeks thought it was some sort of magical air that the gods breathed, Plato thought it was an actual element, Aristotle thought it was changeless and characterless... etc. Modern thinkers imagined it as a medium for transmitting forces which has now been proven not to exist - before we understood the specifics of the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, there were those who assumed that some sort of "aether" was needed as a bounding agent - since made obsolete by a hundred years of direct evidence. No interpretation of aether is, or ever was, a synonym for what we know as "space" which is not homogeneous in (aether always was), nor required for electromagnetic propagation.

Aether as a concept is entirely obsolete, and has been proven directly. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantics, at all.