The deception that the sun's rays are coming inclined

Nice try!

Why thankyou! I have amended the post to include it is an artist impression to avoid any confusion for future readers of the thread 

I look at the Sun through telescopes, very carefully and with special filters made specifically for doing so and protection

I fully agree with this.  I use a Lunt specialised solar telescope (LS152Ha) which allows me to view the Sun at two very specific wavelengths (Ha and CaK).  At the very least use a specially designed white light filter bought from a specialist supplier. If you're going to damage anything damage a camera and not your eyes!

Quote from: Solarwind on July 07, 2020, 01:48:26 PM

Nice try!

Why thankyou! I have amended the post to include it is an artist impression to avoid any confusion for future readers of the thread 

Really?

Artist impression of a Flat Earth sun moving away

Funny, I suppose.  It's still dishonest, and yet another bit of evidence you're a troll and not serious.  Dissapointing.

Quote from: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 01:50:08 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on July 07, 2020, 01:48:26 PM

Nice try!

Why thankyou! I have amended the post to include it is an artist impression to avoid any confusion for future readers of the thread 

Quote from: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 01:30:31 PM

Really?

Artist impression of a Flat Earth sun moving away

Funny, I suppose.  It's still dishonest, and yet another bit of evidence you're a troll and not serious.  Dissapointing.

Disclaimers are always written in small print. You obviously had no trouble finding it

So having established that it is quite easy to show how the Sun remains the same size in the sky all the time, where does this leave Wises initial assertion that the daily variation in solar flux intensity on a solar panel is down to the Suns varying distance. Which is not true.

Now tell us how can little kids know what is cosine? At what age ordinary kid learns it?

The kids don't need to know what cosine is to understand that the sun hitting it at an angle will give it less power.

Wait up. So if NASA uses CGI and labels it 'artists impression' but pretends to base it on a real thing that's cool. But a Flat Earther doing the same it's 'OMG YOU'RE LYING'

You presented it in a manner implying it is evidence that the sun gets smaller at sunset/sunrise, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

When NASA presents the images, they clearly label them as an artist impression, or clearly indicate they are composite images.

So yes, when you blatantly misrepresent something, people will call you out for dishonesty. When NASA honestly presents something, there is no reason to.

Disclaimers are always written in small print.

Yes, disclaimers, not statements to honestly present something.

Do you have a problem with the disclaimer? It clearly states it's an artist impression of a flat earth sun moving away.

If you have a suggestion I can edit the post again to be more to your liking. I'm pretty accommodating. 

Do you have a problem with the disclaimer? It clearly states it's an artist impression of a flat earth sun moving away.

If you have a suggestion I can edit the post again to be more to your liking. I'm pretty accommodating. 

Sure, remove the really part, and make your disclaimer nice and big so it is clearly visible. In fact, make it the biggest part of the post.

Quote from: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 03:40:17 PM

Do you have a problem with the disclaimer? It clearly states it's an artist impression of a flat earth sun moving away.

If you have a suggestion I can edit the post again to be more to your liking. I'm pretty accommodating. 

Sure, remove the really part, and make your disclaimer nice and big so it is clearly visible. In fact, make it the biggest part of the post.

OK! Watch that space!

Quote from: JackBlack on July 07, 2020, 04:07:01 PM

Quote from: Shifter on July 07, 2020, 03:40:17 PM

Do you have a problem with the disclaimer? It clearly states it's an artist impression of a flat earth sun moving away.

If you have a suggestion I can edit the post again to be more to your liking. I'm pretty accommodating. 

Sure, remove the really part, and make your disclaimer nice and big so it is clearly visible. In fact, make it the biggest part of the post.

OK! Watch that space!

I fail to see the relevance of your posts to Wise's topic, "The deception that the sun's rays are coming inclined", or OP;

The amount of energy produced by a solar panel during the day is as follows.



It will be seen that this is impossible in the globalist system where the distance of the sun is constant. But this graphic is compatible with the flat world model. Since the sun is distant in the morning and evening hours, the amount of energy is decreasing rapidly.

In such a situation, globalists resort to a lie as follow: "The sun's rays are coming inclined to the atmosphere".

There is no scientific study on this subject shows the relationship between what happens if sun rays come vertical or horizontal.

Here again, I see the helplessness of the globalists and watch with pleasure.

But, on both the flat-Earth and the Globe, the Sun's rays come in at a steep angle to the vertical both early and late in the day.

Wise is asking for an explanation on the Globe not on his flat Earth and can't see how a steep angle will greatly reduce how much the power generation falls off.

So you are wasting your time with your misleading images.
 

I think we need to figure out if we are looking at the sun in the sky or an apparent image.

I think we need to figure out if we are looking at the sun in the sky or an apparent image.

Why? What difference would it make in your mind?

Wise is correct in two ways. A change in angle of sunlight alone, should not weaken the amount of solar energy on a solar panel. Also, the sun is actually further away from any particular spot on Earth from a globalist view also, at either sunrise or sunset, compared to midday, by being rotated away from as opposed to being square on.

The ingredient which weakens sunlight from the globalist standpoint, either side of midday, is Earth's atmosphere. Sunlight must pass through more atmosphere, as the angle decreases, which disperses more infra red and visible sunlight rays.

Take away Earth's atmosphere, and angle would make no difference on a solar cell.

Wise is correct in two ways. A change in angle of sunlight alone, should not weaken the amount of solar energy on a solar panel. Also, the sun is actually further away from any particular spot on Earth from a globalist view also, at either sunrise or sunset, compared to midday, by being rotated away from as opposed to being square on.

The ingredient which weakens sunlight from the globalist standpoint, either side of midday, is Earth's atmosphere. Sunlight must pass through more atmosphere, as the angle decreases, which disperses more infra red and visible sunlight rays.

Take away Earth's atmosphere, and angle would make no difference on a solar cell.

Thank you for your comment. You proved that you are the most knowledgeable and examiner globalist here. Science is exactly what this means.

In order to produce a proof or counter thesis on this issue, first of all, it is required a model that shows the atmospheric layers on the globe, and in this model, it is necessary to model how many kilometers of atmospheric layers pass separately to the observer on earth when the sun rays come upright and inclined. I understand that it's an inverted sentence. I don't have time to fix it right now.

I have a meeting today and I'm busy again later. I'm going to do a model that models this tomorrow or Friday. I did a preliminary study and I feel as if it is 2 or 3 times difference. There is no concrete study of how much sunlight loses energy as it passes through these layers. That was the missing part I talk about.

You proved that you are the most knowledgeable and examiner globalist here

How has he proved that...? just by saying he agrees with you!   There is a fundamental flaw in what he says.  Have you noticed what that is?

Wise is correct in two ways. A change in angle of sunlight alone, should not weaken the amount of solar energy on a solar panel. Also, the sun is actually further away from any particular spot on Earth from a globalist view also, at either sunrise or sunset, compared to midday, by being rotated away from as opposed to being square on.

The ingredient which weakens sunlight from the globalist standpoint, either side of midday, is Earth's atmosphere. Sunlight must pass through more atmosphere, as the angle decreases, which disperses more infra red and visible sunlight rays.

Take away Earth's atmosphere, and angle would make no difference on a solar cell.

You could not be further from the truth.

The angle is by far the most significant factor.
The atmosphere is negligible until sunrise or sunset.
The distance is effectively nothing.
At most the distance changes by ~6400 km from dawn to midday, or 0.00004 times the distance to the sun. That results in change in the power by a factor of roughly 1.00009. Nothing like what is observed.

Likewise, the atmosphere does not significantly absorb or scatter the radiation from the sun.
If it did you could easily look up at it, without any risk of damage to your eyes.

Again, it is simple geometry.
The sun is emitting radiation at a fairly constant rate.
Lets just call it k W/m^2, and consider a solar panel that is 1 m^2.
Now if the panel is perpendicular to the incoming radiation that means it is hit by the full power of k W.
If instead we tilt it to 45 degrees, then it no longer takes up that full 1 m^2. Instead it takes up roughly 0.7 m^2, and thus the power it gets it ~0.7 k W.

Again, a simple diagram represents this:

Notice how the grey line is shorter than the black line?
That means the sun rays coming at an angle give the panel less power.

This is why the location solar panels are installed is important, where you want the optimal angle, and why people make tracking solar panels which track the sun through the day.

Interesting, jack black.

So, you say, if we tilt the solar panel to be almost vertical and directly facing the sun at 90 degrees at either sunrise or sunset, the solar panel will collect as much energy as directly overhead, at midday? 

You say the extra atmosphere between the sun and any spot on earth at sunrise or sunset in the extra dispersion of infra red radiation and visible light, through the atmosphere, is negligible?   

It's all about the angle, you say?

Then why does a solar panel at 90 degrees to the sun at sunrise, not collect the same amount of energy as at 90 degrees to the sun at midday?

People can also safely gaze at the sun at either sunrise or sunset, and not damage their eyes as they would at midday. Your explanation? (The sun's rays are still a straight line from the sun at sunrise or sunset.)

Tell us again how extra atmosphere is negligible when it comes to sunlight strength.

So, you say, if we tilt the solar panel to be almost vertical and directly facing the sun at 90 degrees at either sunrise or sunset, the solar panel will collect as much energy as directly overhead, at midday? 

I specifically said that the effect of the atmosphere is only significant at sunrise and sunset.
If you try it at times from an hour or so after sunrise to an hour or so after sunset, it will be fairly constant.

You say the extra atmosphere between the sun and any spot on earth at sunrise or sunset in the extra dispersion of infra red radiation and visible light, through the atmosphere, is negligible?

The radiation required to excite the electrons in the solar panel to produce energy from it have a wavelength close to red light.
The infrared radiation significantly absorbed by the atmosphere has an energy that is too small to excite the electrons into the conduction band and thus blocking them has no effect unless you are using experimental solar panels which upconvert such radiation.
The blue light that is mainly scattered by the atmosphere loses a significant portion of its energy when being converted to electricity, and there is not as much of that in the solar spectrum (per number of photons).

It's all about the angle, you say?

No, I say the angle is the most significant factor.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to explain how a solar panel tilted such that it only receives a portion of the incoming radiation can still produce the same energy.

You can then also explain why people put in the effort of making tracking solar panels which track the sun.
And why even for systems without trackers people mount them tilted, in particular directions, rather than just mounting them flat, or not caring about direction, even sometimes having them tilted on a roof rather than just laying them on a roof.

And you can explain this graph:

From this site:
https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-trackers/
(It would be better if they did it in summer).
Or this one:

From this site:
http://volewica.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-solar-bell-curve.html

Notice how in the graphs, the fixed solar panel has a ramp up lasting many hours (~4-5) until it reaches full power?
Meanwhile, the tracking one has a very sharp increase taking less than an hour to get to full power?