discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality

  • 48 Replies
  • 4027 Views
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2014, 12:03:14 PM »
Quote
Since you seem to have a hard time reading our FAQs, I'll explain some of the basics to you.

No one has a hard time reading your FAQ.

It's actually believing the crap written in there that is difficult.

Everything else you typed was also pure crap.


This is the simplest it can get.
Burden of Proof.

1. The obligation to prove one's assertion.

Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2014, 12:14:46 PM »

This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.

In addition to this law of perspective the remaining light of the Sun will be lost by the atmosphere, which is non-transparent. After the sun sets the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes a couple hours for the deep blackness of the night to set in. The cause of night is simply due to a non-transparent atmosphere. As the sun recedes its light is dimmed and lost to the increasing number of atoms and molecules which intersect the light rays.
It is difficult to no where to begin with this.  It is such fuckwittery that it leaves one open mouthed at it's pure chutzpah.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2014, 02:30:05 PM »
Its the simplest explanation to a natural phenomenon we observe everyday. Its a much better explanation than RE sunsets, mostly because: it actually makes sense. It's a far more elegant and provable fact than the sun/moon pulley system model that is mistakenly believed by many.
Read the FAQS.

Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2014, 02:52:51 PM »
Its the simplest explanation to a natural phenomenon we observe everyday. Its a much better explanation than RE sunsets, mostly because: it actually makes sense. It's a far more elegant and provable fact than the sun/moon pulley system model that is mistakenly believed by many.
How do you explain that measured angles of the sun from different places at different times of day are fully consistent with the re model and explain the sun rising and setting through the 24 hour day throughout the world.?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 03:58:58 PM by inquisitive »

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2014, 03:02:30 PM »
Its the simplest explanation to a natural phenomenon we observe everyday. Its a much better explanation than RE sunsets, mostly because: it actually makes sense. It's a far more elegant and provable fact than the sun/moon pulley system model that is mistakenly believed by many.

There aren't any pulleys involved in the Sun/Moon system. You should probably read up on how it actually works so you can make a proper argument.

Your explanation doesn't make sense - if the atmosphere caused night, the sun should just get dimmer and dimmer as it recedes, as would the stars. Sun, Moon and stars are basically the same brightness before the go below the horizon, then they disappear abruptly. Sun and Moon stay the same size and shape too. If they are really relatively small objects relatively close to us, they should change apparent size like everything else does due to perspective.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2014, 03:26:38 PM »
Its the simplest explanation to a natural phenomenon we observe everyday. Its a much better explanation than RE sunsets, mostly because: it actually makes sense. It's a far more elegant and provable fact than the sun/moon pulley system model that is mistakenly believed by many.

I am not sure how a system that is inconsistent and relies upon untested, unmodelled and unobserved phenomena can possibly be described as sensical, elegant or provable.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #36 on: May 28, 2014, 01:28:30 AM »
I am not sure how a system that is inconsistent and relies upon untested, unmodelled and unobserved phenomena can possibly be described as sensical, elegant or provable.
Then, Sir, you clearly do not understand the genius that is Vauxhall.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #37 on: May 28, 2014, 07:23:19 AM »
you seem to have a hard time reading our FAQs, I'll explain some of the basics to you.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:


However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:


This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point. Every receding star and celestial body in the night sky likewise disappears after intersecting with the vanishing point.

This might be my favourite part of FE doctrine. It's not the most insane, it's just the most... flagrant.

Quote
Well, sure you can see the bottom half of a ship drop below the water and still see the top half just fine, but that's just what happens when things get far away.
Wat.

Of course, these rules only apply to things that might conceivably be observed behind the horizon, like ships and skylines. Water, for example follows entirely different rules and instead of dropping away, it stays right there and blocks half of the ship from view. Obvious :D

Putting the vanishing point of parallel lines at infinity has nothing to do with art school or human limitations, it's just geometry. The same size object subtends a smaller angle the further it is from the observer, go far enough and it subtends too small an angle to see. It makes no difference whether that object is the ocean, a ship, lamp posts, a person or the moon. There's nothing that will cause the bottom of a ship to squeeze down to nothing while the top 3/4 of it remains the same height. The whole ship " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">will get smaller, but uniformly. Just like the sea will. That's why they both shrink towards the horizon. Until the ship drops below the horizon, anyway.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2014, 09:49:19 AM »
Its the simplest explanation to a natural phenomenon we observe everyday. Its a much better explanation than RE sunsets, mostly because: it actually makes sense. It's a far more elegant and provable fact than the sun/moon pulley system model that is mistakenly believed by many.

There aren't any pulleys involved in the Sun/Moon system. You should probably read up on how it actually works so you can make a proper argument.

Your explanation doesn't make sense - if the atmosphere caused night, the sun should just get dimmer and dimmer as it recedes, as would the stars. Sun, Moon and stars are basically the same brightness before the go below the horizon, then they disappear abruptly. Sun and Moon stay the same size and shape too. If they are really relatively small objects relatively close to us, they should change apparent size like everything else does due to perspective.


I know how it works, Shmeggley. The sun/moon gravity well system functions like an elaborate pulley system, don't argue this with me because I know what I'm talking about.

The sun does indeed slowly dim into nothingness, it's just hard to observe with something similar to the human eye. Due to atmospheric refraction, water droplets obscure your view at the horizon, making it hard to tell exactly what is happening. Rest assured though, it's an optical illusion. The sun does get smaller as it gets closer to night, it's just that the light from the sun combined with the refaction index of the water droplets near the horizon obsurce your view.

Hasn't this been explained to you before?
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2014, 10:17:26 AM »
Its the simplest explanation to a natural phenomenon we observe everyday. Its a much better explanation than RE sunsets, mostly because: it actually makes sense. It's a far more elegant and provable fact than the sun/moon pulley system model that is mistakenly believed by many.

There aren't any pulleys involved in the Sun/Moon system. You should probably read up on how it actually works so you can make a proper argument.

Your explanation doesn't make sense - if the atmosphere caused night, the sun should just get dimmer and dimmer as it recedes, as would the stars. Sun, Moon and stars are basically the same brightness before the go below the horizon, then they disappear abruptly. Sun and Moon stay the same size and shape too. If they are really relatively small objects relatively close to us, they should change apparent size like everything else does due to perspective.


I know how it works, Shmeggley. The sun/moon gravity well system functions like an elaborate pulley system, don't argue this with me because I know what I'm talking about.

The sun does indeed slowly dim into nothingness, it's just hard to observe with something similar to the human eye. Due to atmospheric refraction, water droplets obscure your view at the horizon, making it hard to tell exactly what is happening. Rest assured though, it's an optical illusion. The sun does get smaller as it gets closer to night, it's just that the light from the sun combined with the refaction index of the water droplets near the horizon obsurce your view.

Hasn't this been explained to you before?

OK, so you you say you know what you're talking about, therefore I can't argue with you, therefore you're right? Yeah, heard that one before. People who say this are generally full of shit.

I'm interested in this pulley system idea of yours, as I've never heard it described that way. Are you sure you're not thinking of an orrery? You can make a mechanical model of the solar system with gears and cogs, or cords and pulleys, but they're limited in accuracy.

As for the tired explanation of optical illusions caused by atmosphere, yes I've heard it before, and it's never been satisfactory. I've seen the Sun through haze, smoke, fog, etc, and it doesn't ever make it look farther away, just hazy. No amount of perspective, water droplets or whatever will make a round object look like it's been cut in half in any other situation, so why would this happen with the Sun?

How can you explain that the apparent size of the Sun is the same at noon as at sunset? You say atmospheric lensing, but are you really suggesting that the reduction in apparent size of the Sun due to its moving further away, is exactly balanced by an increase in size due to lensing, with no distortion? Here's a page with examples of actual atmospheric lensing, along with the relevant equations. Do the math and see how it actually works out.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #40 on: May 28, 2014, 11:15:57 AM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #41 on: May 28, 2014, 11:33:03 AM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?

I am mostly referring to gravity and string theory.
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2014, 12:02:41 PM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?

I am mostly referring to gravity and string theory.

Nice try, but string theory doesn't involve any pulleys either.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2014, 12:17:25 PM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?

I am mostly referring to gravity and string theory.

Nice try, but string theory doesn't involve any pulleys either.

Please come back when you've fully grasped string theory.

Or are you claiming to be an accomplished theoretical physicist now?  ::)
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2014, 12:31:20 PM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?

I am mostly referring to gravity and string theory.

Nice try, but string theory doesn't involve any pulleys either.

Please come back when you've fully grasped string theory.

Or are you claiming to be an accomplished theoretical physicist now?  ::)

I'm claiming that I've never heard any layman's description of string theory that involved pulleys. Vibrating strings of energy and 11 dimensions, yes, but not pulleys.

Anyway, since you are the one saying string theory involves pulleys, perhaps you can explain it?

EDIT: And to back up a few posts here what do you mean by mostly gravity and string theory? What else is involved in this model of orbital mechanics involving pulleys besides gravity and string theory?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 12:55:21 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2014, 05:07:44 PM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?

I am mostly referring to gravity and string theory.

This requires some serious elaboration because string theory would have little hope of explaining the movement of the stars.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2014, 02:40:00 AM »
So is this "pulley system" the same as the "celestial gears"?  Or are we talking about actual ropes strung up between the sun, moon etc?

I am mostly referring to gravity and string theory.
I'm not sure string theory involves actual string.  Maybe you need to do some more research - perhaps talk to a cat?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2014, 10:58:12 AM »
He's thinking about Rope Theory, it's a related but distinct formulation to String Theory. Conflating the two is surprisingly common in academic circles, I understand.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

Re: discrepancy between FE day/night cycle and reality
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2014, 11:25:26 AM »
LOL @ anyone here telling someone else to fully understand string theory. Vauxhall, do you fully understand string theory? Do you understand it to the point where you can make demands of someone else to understand to your liking? If not, I suggest you pipe down.