How far could you see?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2013, 04:20:53 AM

It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level.

Really? Every sound has a frequency and dB level, so I think they might be kind of important.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2013, 04:20:53 AM

The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.

Nope.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2013, 04:20:53 AM

Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.

Did that, you ignored me.

Try this (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioluminescence

Keep in mind, these interactions are at an atomic level, and are not mechanical, so nothing that could be called sound is produced.

Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.

Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.

So what frequency is the sound produced by tritium?

I can't find any data on any sound produced by tritium or radium.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2013, 05:10:35 AM

Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.

So what frequency is the sound produced by tritium?

I can't find any data on any sound produced by tritium or radium.

Probably because the sound is below ear shot.  However, did you look up the frequencies at which tritium releases its energy?  I am just curious. 

Quote from: Spank86 on December 21, 2013, 05:14:27 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 21, 2013, 05:10:35 AM

Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.

So what frequency is the sound produced by tritium?

I can't find any data on any sound produced by tritium or radium.

Probably because the sound is below ear shot.  However, did you look up the frequencies at which tritium releases its energy?  I am just curious.

the only references I can find are to it's frequencies on the electro-magnetic spectrum not to sonic frequencies.

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

Sound turns into light in our atmosphere.  The air contains plenty of water vapor.

Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.

So what frequency sound does an LED produce?

So what frequency sound does an LED produce?

Low frequency.
Click link and open the document:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F234848397_Low_frequency_noise_and_long-term_stability_of_noncoherent_light_sources%2Ffile%2F79e415112c23fe5b1d.pdf&ei=I8a1UsDnKKXQ2AWaiIDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNFtmUFZYM6mblteHTj-aHsBSxxAzA

How much sound is made when an electron releases energy and drops an energy level?

Like I said, you can't produce anything that creates light without it creating sound. Just because your primitive ears cannot hear it, does not mean it's not there.

No; this is silly.  Sound as we know it is produced by the mechanical peturbations of air molecules impinging on our eardrums—or other electronic acoustic sensors.

As others have said, light is the product of electromagnetic radiation that's visible to the human eye.  And EMR in this scenario definitely doesn't produce any sound.

How much sound is made when an electron releases energy and drops an energy level?

Ok I guess we are at an agreement that the answer is zero.

Quote from: jroa on November 06, 2013, 08:46:52 AM

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 06, 2013, 08:41:44 AM

Quote

It really does go from east to west.  The optical illusion comes into play when the sun is so far away that it is approaching the horizon.  This distance is at the limit of the sun's light being able to penetrate the air.  It simply appears to sink below the horizon as it fades away from view. 

I hope this makes sense. 

It doesn't.

So how does it get back in the east again to appear to come up from the horizon?

It goes in a circle.

Quote from: InquiringMind on November 06, 2013, 08:43:07 AM

If the Earth were flat.........the sun wouldn't set on the horizon. It would stay high up in the sky and get smaller and smaller as it moved away until you couldn't see it. Similar to a bird flying away from you.

The atmolayer magnifies the size of the sun.  It is like a giant magnifying glass.

If it goes in a circle, I would expect to see that. Also how can the atmolayer be magnifying things. You know a magnifying glass is a convex. I certainly would not expect the atmo'layer' to be convex on a flat world. Your theory becomes more bizarre by the minute.

1- it is simple, have you ever seen the sun exactly upon your head in any place in the world? no! the question is why? the  sun always circulates in a semi circular path from east to west! and during the year it changes it setting places! yet if the earth were spherical the sun set would always have the same setting point even during equinoxes / summer winter solstices!

2- the sun appears hotter, more luminous and smaller at 12:00 PM
    at the sun set it becomes colder, red, and bigger!
    you can check this out by your self,

3- God has given us all the necessary tools to discover the universe by our selves,
    but the new world order thaught us to believe in his vision which is not real!

1- it is simple, have you ever seen the sun exactly upon your head in any place in the world? no! the question is why? the  sun always circulates in a semi circular path from east to west! and during the year it changes it setting places! yet if the earth were spherical the sun set would always have the same setting point even during equinoxes / summer winter solstices!

2- the sun appears hotter, more luminous and smaller at 12:00 PM
    at the sun set it becomes colder, red, and bigger!
    you can check this out by your self,

3- God has given us all the necessary tools to discover the universe by our selves,
    but the new world order thaught us to believe in his vision which is not real!

1- Not sure what you mean by "exactly upon your head", but if you mean "directly overhead", then yes, this happens regularly between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. As for having the same setting place all year if the earth were spherical, I think you need to give that some more thought, you are clearly missing some very important spatial reasoning there. Perhaps get a globe and a desk lamp and make some observations using those. You should quickly see why the rising and setting location moves over the course of a year.

2- Yes, this is true (to a degree), but the key word is "appears". The sun is not really any of these things, it just seems to be (colder because of the shallower angle at which it's light hits the earth, redder because of the increased distance it's light must travel through the atmosphere, and bigger because of an optical illusion, thought to be similar to an Ebbinghaus illusion). Remember, at sunset in one place, it's still midday in another.

3- Religion is a subject I choose not to discuss, so I shall not comment further on this point.

It is simple, have you ever seen the sun exactly upon your head in any place in the world? no! the question is why? the  sun always circulates in a semi circular path from east to west! and during the year it changes it setting places! yet if the earth were spherical the sun set would always have the same setting point even during equinoxes / summer winter solstices!

Yes; of course.  Please check out this diagram.  Your knowledge of astrophysics is somewhat lacking.



Additionally, the sun does not "circulate" in any "path" relative to the earth;  it's stationary.  And the sun also does not "rise" or "set".  They're just convenient figures of speech.

This diagram illustrates the reason why the seasons vary.  The "plane of the ecliptic" is the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun.  Also note the 23.5ş tilt of the earth's axis relative to the perpendicular (and the sun's axis).
 

Additionally, the sun does not "circulate" in any "path" relative to the earth;  it's stationary.  And the sun also does not "rise" or "set".  They're just convenient figures of speech.

This diagram illustrates the reason why the seasons vary.  The "plane of the ecliptic" is the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun.  Also note the 23.5ş tilt of the earth's axis relative to the perpendicular (and the sun's axis).
 

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Let's start from the very basics of primitive life, like rubbing a stick on stone to make a fire.
Yes, yes, I know that science is much more advanced than this...but it wasn't at one time and all things happen because of a frequency, a vibration/friction and the energy to create it to the energy created from it.

If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.

The trouble with you high forehead scientists, is, you dare not even think on simple lines because it makes your science less amazing to the masses if it was explained in simplistic terms, this is why you all go into spasms when someone comes along to kick you into shape...you all go into the pack mentality of attempted intimidation by using pathetic formulas and ridiculous equations to explain something that in reality can be explained to a child in a way they can understand.

Thankfully there's only a hand full of people on here that do this, as many people actually have enough about them to at least question stuff.

first I would have to say something: "thank you septimatic"
I will present for the second time a video at the end of this response, but before that, I would have to explain for some people here, that I live in Algeria (one of the countries among which the tropic of concer pass through) when the sun rises it rises alone from east to west when the clouds usually go towards the east I mean they do not follow the sun direction!!! (it proves that it's the sun who moves not the earth!) I don't want any one to tell me something rediculous about the atmospheric layer effect because when some of your lords have supposidly touched down the moon and take some videos of their waving flag! no one of you have questioned why is the flag fluttering? the sun turns and always circulates in an oblique path it proves that it is always turning around the earth and the same thing happens in each place on the earth!
and I would have to explain implicitly to someone who posted a commentary in which he explains that the sun is always overhead  between the tropic of cancer and capricorn!
"On the equator, the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two equinoxes - near March and September 21
because the sun changes its orbit but if you'll go to any Equatorial country in winter you will not find the sun shining overhead!
this is the proof that the sun runs around the earth because otherwise the sun will always appear overhead there,
and for your information: the sun doesn't even appear exactly overhead in any place in the world even in the equator, I said "exactly overhead" not "directly overhead" it's different!

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Earth is flat the Sun says so.

Let's start from the very basics of primitive life, like rubbing a stick on stone to make a fire.
Yes, yes, I know that science is much more advanced than this...but it wasn't at one time and all things happen because of a frequency, a vibration/friction and the energy to create it to the energy created from it.

If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.

The trouble with you high forehead scientists, is, you dare not even think on simple lines because it makes your science less amazing to the masses if it was explained in simplistic terms, this is why you all go into spasms when someone comes along to kick you into shape...you all go into the pack mentality of attempted intimidation by using pathetic formulas and ridiculous equations to explain something that in reality can be explained to a child in a way they can understand.

Thankfully there's only a hand full of people on here that do this, as many people actually have enough about them to at least question stuff.

You are terrible at logic. Bang the stick and rock together while in the dark. Do they make a sound, yes. Do they make light, no.
In your example the stick starts to glow because of heat. That is why when you stop rubbing the rock and stick together the stick still glows. The stick is hot enough to react with the oxygen in the air.
Not quite sure why you can't understand anything yet have no problem making things up.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Nobody lives on the Sun.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

Pretty stationary isn't stationary. 

Quote from: Spank86 on December 31, 2013, 03:59:41 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Nobody lives on the Sun.

My God! really?
Who would've thought?

Quote from: Moosedrool on December 31, 2013, 12:46:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

Pretty stationary isn't stationary. 

2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:



Congratulations!

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:52:36 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on December 31, 2013, 03:59:41 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Nobody lives on the Sun.

My God! really?
Who would've thought?

I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.

Quote from: Moosedrool on December 31, 2013, 12:46:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

Pretty stationary isn't stationary. 

2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:



Congratulations!

I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective

Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun

One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries

If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 31, 2013, 04:40:12 AM

Let's start from the very basics of primitive life, like rubbing a stick on stone to make a fire.
Yes, yes, I know that science is much more advanced than this...but it wasn't at one time and all things happen because of a frequency, a vibration/friction and the energy to create it to the energy created from it.

If you were to rub your stick along a stone at a slow pace, you will find that your stick becomes warm and makes a reasonably audible sound. If you speed up that rubbing, you find that the audible sound gets less and less and yet the stick starts to glow at the end.
This is all you should need to know to tell you that you do not get light, no matter how much you think it over...if you do not have SOUND.

The trouble with you high forehead scientists, is, you dare not even think on simple lines because it makes your science less amazing to the masses if it was explained in simplistic terms, this is why you all go into spasms when someone comes along to kick you into shape...you all go into the pack mentality of attempted intimidation by using pathetic formulas and ridiculous equations to explain something that in reality can be explained to a child in a way they can understand.

Thankfully there's only a hand full of people on here that do this, as many people actually have enough about them to at least question stuff.

You are terrible at logic. Bang the stick and rock together while in the dark. Do they make a sound, yes. Do they make light, no.
In your example the stick starts to glow because of heat. That is why when you stop rubbing the rock and stick together the stick still glows. The stick is hot enough to react with the oxygen in the air.
Not quite sure why you can't understand anything yet have no problem making things up.

I had a feeling that this would whizz past your illogical head. I tried to use the most basic, but, as we can see, Karul has decided that sticks burn and that's it and you can bang them and rock together.

Should I up it a notch so you can understand or am I wasting my time talking to you. 

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:52:36 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on December 31, 2013, 03:59:41 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Nobody lives on the Sun.

My God! really?
Who would've thought?

I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:53:26 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on December 31, 2013, 12:46:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

Pretty stationary isn't stationary. 

2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:



Congratulations!

I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective

Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun

One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries

If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.

Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.
Take some time out and look in the mirror and have a real good word with yourself and don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone, even if they tell you that the earth is a square block, because what you subscribe to is the silliest of the lot.

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:52:36 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on December 31, 2013, 03:59:41 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Nobody lives on the Sun.

My God! really?
Who would've thought?

I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:53:26 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on December 31, 2013, 12:46:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

Pretty stationary isn't stationary. 

2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:



Congratulations!

I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective

Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun

One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries

If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.

Nothing you said is false but the core purpose of this discussion is that the sun does not move in a circular motion above earth's surface but that the global earth moves around the sun.

Your argument of motion relative to our solar system is accurate but comparing the circular small sun motion FE's describe to the pretty stationary rotating wobbling object is what this debate is about.

I had a feeling that this would whizz past your illogical head. I tried to use the most basic, but, as we can see, Karul has decided that sticks burn and that's it and you can bang them and rock together.

Should I up it a notch so you can understand or am I wasting my time talking to you. 

None of what you have ever said has ever been above any one person's level of intelligence.
You are just constantly making insane claims with no evidence at all to back it up.
"Rubbing two sticks together makes fire and light, while also making sound. Therefore, sound is responsible for all light and there could never be any light without sound."
You don't see the colossally gargantuan logical misstep(s) here?

You're just not very educated.
You seem to just enjoy stroking your ego - never taking into even the slightest amount of consideration that there is any possibility that you may be wrong.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 02:11:11 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:52:36 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on December 31, 2013, 03:59:41 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

depends on your frame of reference.

Nobody lives on the Sun.

My God! really?
Who would've thought?

I'm saying that the Sun is only completely stationary relative to the observer on the Sun.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on January 01, 2014, 01:53:26 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on December 31, 2013, 12:46:34 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on December 31, 2013, 12:39:33 AM

Quote from: Moosedrool on January 01, 2014, 01:59:44 AM

The Sun is certainly not stationary.

Yeah it orbit's around our galaxy and our entire galaxy is moving towards the great attractor but relative to our solar system it's pretty stationary, rotating on it's own axis with a very slight wobble.

Pretty stationary isn't stationary. 

2014 hasn't even passed 1 day and you've been nominated for:



Congratulations!

I don't understand how what I said was false. I just had to give someone else the definition of stationary on another thread, but here :
stationary
Houghton Mifflin
adj.adjective

Not moving.
Not capable of being moved; fixed.
Unchanging.
a stationary sound.
n.noun

One that is stationary.
Variation
n.: stationaries

If the Sun even slightly wobbles, it is not stationary.
But it wobbles and rotates.
Hardly stationary.

Nothing you said is false but the core purpose of this discussion is that the sun does not move in a circular motion above earth's surface but that the global earth moves around the sun.

Your argument of motion relative to our solar system is accurate but comparing the circular small sun motion FE's describe to the pretty stationary rotating wobbling object is what this debate is about.

I understand, and was working out some apparent discrepancies.
Just trying to help.
No need for the hostility.

Wobbles! have a word for crying out loud. All this fantastic space stuff of so called superb ballerina type planets all working like clockwork and we have a few with weak ankles, so they WOBBLE.
Take some time out and look in the mirror and have a real good word with yourself and don't ever dare put down ANY theory from anyone, even if they tell you that the earth is a square block, because what you subscribe to is the silliest of the lot.

What's wrong with the word wobble? That's what it does.
Stop making me be your guys' dictionary.
Wobble Definition
v. verb
To move or rotate with an uneven or rocking motion or unsteadily from side to side.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 01, 2014, 02:14:24 AM

I had a feeling that this would whizz past your illogical head. I tried to use the most basic, but, as we can see, Karul has decided that sticks burn and that's it and you can bang them and rock together.

Should I up it a notch so you can understand or am I wasting my time talking to you. 

None of what you have ever said has ever been above any one person's level of intelligence.
You are just constantly making insane claims with no evidence at all to back it up.
"Rubbing two sticks together makes fire and light, while also making sound. Therefore, sound is responsible for all light and there could never be any light without sound."
You don't see the colossally gargantuan logical misstep(s) here?

You're just not very educated.
You seem to just enjoy stroking your ego - never taking into even the slightest amount of consideration that there is any possibility that you may be wrong.

I need my ego when dealing with people like you. My ego allows me to educate people like you into the simplistic basics of the earth.
It's designed to bring you back down to earth from your higher than heaven stance that you believe you hold on the so called lesser people who do not support the model that you were thoroughly brainwashed in to oblivion with.
I can accept I'm wrong on any occasion as long as it's against another logical reasoning. You and your crew do not know the meaning of the word, logic.