The Green Flash Phenomenon

  • 134 Replies
  • 14064 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #120 on: May 26, 2020, 05:12:13 AM »
They don't!
No, "they" don't - whoever this mysterious "they" are.
Why would anyone be silly enough to pay someone to post here?

Quote from: sandokhan
You are here 10-12 hours every day for the past five years, FOR FREE???
I haven't been a member for 5 years and haven't been logged in 10-12 hours a day so you've got your wires crossed somewhere.
But just because I'm logged in means nothing though lately refuting your trash has taken a bit because I don't just copy swathes from any great database like your Advanced ;D Flat Earth Theory.

Now that you've done you best to insult me do you move anything meaningful to add to the topic, "The Green Flash Phenomenon"?


*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #121 on: May 26, 2020, 06:03:03 AM »
I have destroyed all of your arguments.
No, you have repeatedly fled from them.

In order to destroy all of our arguments you would need to explain how the light from the sun splits to produce the green flash, without splitting.

If you can't do that, then your argument remains refuted nonsense.

And it seems that yet again, rather than even attempt to deal with that, or otherwise try to refute the RE explanation, you just appeal to pure nonsense, spamming the thread with off topic nonsense.

So I'll ask again:
You claim that light does not split.
But the green flash requires the light from the sun to split such that the green light is separate from the rest.
So how does it split if it doesn't split?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #122 on: May 26, 2020, 06:25:47 AM »
The Hydrogen emission spectral lines could not have been created by the Bohr atom, but only by the subquark colour model.

There is no splitting of the light.

It is the green flash of a capacitor: the Sun is a capacitor.


*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #123 on: May 26, 2020, 06:34:57 AM »
There is no splitting of the light.
Again, then explain HOW THE LIGHT SPLITS if there is no splitting.

We have the light from the sun, repeatedly observed as not green, but then we have a green flash, while the sun is still visible.
As the sun is still visible elsewhere without this green flash, that means it isn't the sun changing colour.
It must be something happening to that white light from the sun, splitting it to separate the green.

So again, how does the light split if there is no splitting?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #124 on: May 26, 2020, 06:44:23 AM »
There is no splitting of the light.

Each string of colour of the subquark can be activated separately from the others.

What is going here is something else: radiant energy is being discharged in a flash of a second, just like a capacitor:


*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #125 on: May 26, 2020, 06:48:31 AM »
There is no splitting of the light
Again, the green flash REQUIRES that light is split.
If you wish to claim that light is not split, then you need to explain how light is split when it is not split.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #126 on: May 26, 2020, 06:52:09 AM »
But it does not.

I have already the explained the subquark colour model.

Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #127 on: May 26, 2020, 11:41:02 AM »
Can you rationally and coherently explain, with your own analysis, why "a dome" would create a green flash at sunset on a flat earth, and how "layers of ether" and the "local ether model" fit in it to make a coherent and consistent whole? I'm betting not. What I expect is a barrage of unrelated nonsense, gratuitous accusations, and evasion, but one can hope.

I have destroyed all of your arguments.

You seem to have forgotten that the energy levels for the Hydrogen atom (difference between two energy levels) MUST equal the wavelength x constant.

...

Evasion noted.

You are useless as a paid shill.

<unrelated nonsense>

I have just proven that the hydrogen emission spectral lines cannot belong to the Bohr atom, but to the subquark atom model.

This means you got nothing left here.

Other than to accept defeat.

Moreover, I have definite proofs that the speed of light is variable, which again proves the subquark colour model to be true.

Then, we are viewing the green flash through a prism (dome).

Gratuitous insult and wall of unrelated nonsense for the trifecta in just two posts!

Can you show why you think the variable speed of light somehow "proves the subquark colour model to be true"? Even knowing that proof is not possible, knowing what you think might be evidence could be interesting.

The baseless claim is, of course, followed by a non-sequitur.

The Hydrogen emission spectral lines could not have been created by the Bohr atom, but only by the subquark colour model.

There is no splitting of the light.

It is the green flash of a capacitor: the Sun is a capacitor.

[What's this that's embedded in your post that doesn't produce anything when your post is displayed?]
Code: [Select]
[img]http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/Bedini/john34/Bedini%20green%20flash%201.jpg[/img]


Whoa!! Something new that might be on topic!!!

So now the green flash is due to the sun being a capacitor? How does that work? Does this phenomenon still require layers in the local ether and/or a dome, or have you abandoned those claims? If so, why?

There is no splitting of the light.

Each string of colour of the subquark can be activated separately from the others.

What is going here is something else: radiant energy is being discharged in a flash of a second, just like a capacitor:



So the green flash is a discrete event that happens at the sun that produces the green flash observed just as the upper limb of the sun reaches the horizon when viewed from some location. Would people viewing the sunset from further west see it before the sun was just about to disappear (i.e. higher in the sky from their location), or would it happen again for them? What if someone was between these sets of people? What would they see? How do the ether layers and dome fit in?

Your "hypothesis" is becoming ever more fragmented the more you say. Maybe you should try to explain and clarify what you've already gotten yourself into before tossing out other bizarre notions.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #128 on: May 26, 2020, 11:51:31 AM »
Evasion noted.

What evasion? Just a complete destruction of your OP.

We saw, in reply #6 above, the basics and some details of dispersion of light with different wavelengths (colors) while passing through a prism and after it emerges. For the following discussion, I have changed the scenario to consider this behavior within the prism itself, and the prism and angle of incidence was changed from light rays arriving parallel to the base of an equilateral prism in the previous example to arriving in a direction from below the base of a 45° prism. Both of these changes increase the angle of incidence of the arriving ray(s), which increases the amount of refraction and dispersion even with no change in the indexes of refraction at each wavelength. They do not change the basic relationship of shorter wavelengths being refracted more than longer wavelengths. The angle of the arriving rays was selected so that green light is refracted so that it is parallel to the base after passing through the face of the prism.

You sure like to bamboozle your readers, don't you?

I have proven that the Hydrogen emission spectral lines could not possibly come from a model which says that electrons orbit the nucleus: they can only come from the subquark colour model, 100% valid model proven to exist.

You seem to have forgotten that the energy levels for the Hydrogen atom (difference between two energy levels) MUST equal the wavelength x constant.

But the Rydberg formula cannot be derived from the Bohr atomic model.


Therefore, the entire spectral emission lines come from the SUBQUARK COLOUR MODEL.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #129 on: May 26, 2020, 01:54:21 PM »
I don't know where to start. You also didn't answer my question.

The drawings represent the correct geometrical shapes observed.

Remember, you have to deal with this:

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.


Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles by Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge), an extraordinary analysis of the discoveries listed in the Occult Chemistry:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf


Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.




https://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html

"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.

The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."

Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."

The description of Adyarium (H dibaryon) matches exactly the image provided by the RIKEN Institute.

1908: meta-neon is described with number weight 22.23

1912: neon-22 is discovered


1908: Y-shaped configurations of lines of force ending on the subquarks (UPAs)

1975: baryons regarded as Y-shaped strings with quarks at their ends


1909: illinium described, number weight 146.66

1945: promethium-147 discovered


1909: masurium described, number weight 100.11

1937: technetium-99 discovered


1932: element 85 described, number weight 221

1940: astatine-219 discovered


1932: element 87 described, number weight 222.55

1939: francium-223 discovered
Without split the fake science crap in your post from the real science I will just say it's no surprise elements were predicted before they were discovered. This is well known. It's not some super secret science.

The neutron is a great example of this. It was long theorized but only found in 1930's.

Quarks were not found until the 1960's.

Quote
The number weights for all of the elements and their isotopes were not obtained randomly, but by a direct process of division by 18 (number of subquarks in a Hydrogen atom). See the precise formula on page 498 (page 10 of the pdf document):

The atomic number is the number of protons and the atomic mass is an average of all the isotopes.


Quote
So, you want to discuss spectral emission lines.
yes

Quote
Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway.
As long as an atom has a temperature it has energy. The electron only emits out energy when it changes states.

Quote
Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.
That's an opinion.
Quote
W. Pauli introduced the notion of the neutrino, BASED TOTALLY ON THE ORBITING ELECTRON MODEL OF BOHR; here are some comments:

THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.
Neutrinos are detectable.


Quote
Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.



Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.
You need to do more homework before you jump to random conclusions.

Quote
If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct and blurred.
In a solid the atoms move the least.

Quote
Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists, between them, eminent physicists however, instead of accepting these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts of kinetic motion and discontinuity.

More using your lack of knowledge as evidence for your argument.

Quote
https://web.archive.org/web/20160402140319/http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/atomsibm.jpg

No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.
Heisenberg principle states nothing of which you just described. Do more homework.

Quote
Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.
Yes, the Bohr model is outdated. We already knew this. The many electron clouds are the current theory.




Quote
The Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen is an effect of the aether vortex theory of atoms, and cannot be linked with an impossible hypothesis created by N. Bohr, who NEVER demonstrated the energy source for the orbiting electrons.
No.

Quote
In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.


I have just proven to you that the hydrogen emission spectral lines come from a subquark model, and not from the Bohr model.
You proved nothing. You want to "prove" (sic) something, perform research. All you did was flex your lack of understanding while not addressing my question.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #130 on: May 26, 2020, 01:56:26 PM »
The Hydrogen emission spectral lines could not have been created by the Bohr atom, but only by the subquark colour model.
It's the electron changing its  orbital.

Quote
There is no splitting of the light.
And yet you can't address all the evidence against you.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JackBlack

  • 21898
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #131 on: May 26, 2020, 02:14:48 PM »
But it does not.
But it must.
Again, if it doesn't you wont see the green flash. Instead you would just see the sun.

You have even provided a photo which clearly shows that it does, with white light partially separating such that there is a red and blue region at the sides.

So I will ask again, how does light split if it doesn't split?

Evasion noted.

What evasion? Just a complete destruction of your OP.

I have proven that the Hydrogen emission spectral lines
See, that is why it is evasion.
The topic is on the green flash.
How light from the white sun can sometimes produce a green flash for observers near sunset.

It has nothing to do with the hydrogen emission spectral lines.
The only relevance they have is that you can use the fact that prisms and diffraction gratings split light to determine the wavelength of the lines of the hydrogen emission spectra.
The source of the emission is completely irrelevant to the thread.
That means it is evasion.

So I will ask again, how does light split if it doesn't split?

Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #132 on: May 26, 2020, 03:16:40 PM »
Evasion noted.

What evasion?

You deflect a discussion about how the green flash could be caused by a dome over a flat earth, or by light dispersion (maybe) caused by the index of refraction of the various layers of ether (or now a capacitor discharging) to a rambling post about synchrotron radiation when applied to an obsolete model of the atom then moves to talking about the structure of the atom. There was no attempt to show how are these related in any way. That evasion.

Quote
Just a complete destruction of your OP.

You regularly make such claims without any justification whatsoever, and do it again here. *Yawn.*

Try to show something relevant and coherent that actually challenges my analysis before declaring victory. If you can. More evasions and attempts at obfuscation will be good evidence that you can't.

Quote
We saw, in reply #6 above, the basics and some details of dispersion of light with different wavelengths (colors) while passing through a prism and after it emerges. For the following discussion, I have changed the scenario to consider this behavior within the prism itself, and the prism and angle of incidence was changed from light rays arriving parallel to the base of an equilateral prism in the previous example to arriving in a direction from below the base of a 45° prism. Both of these changes increase the angle of incidence of the arriving ray(s), which increases the amount of refraction and dispersion even with no change in the indexes of refraction at each wavelength. They do not change the basic relationship of shorter wavelengths being refracted more than longer wavelengths. The angle of the arriving rays was selected so that green light is refracted so that it is parallel to the base after passing through the face of the prism.

You sure like to bamboozle your readers, don't you?

No. I try to do the opposite by trying to explain as clearly as I can.

What part did you not understand? Read the description and look at the related illustrations again. Compare these with the previous illustrations and see if you can identify any deficiencies in what was said. If you're still stumped, please let me know where the description and illustrations are not clear and I'll see if I can explain it in a way you might understand.

By the way, is the Quote function too complicated for you to use? If you use that, you automagically get a link to the post that's being quoted which makes it a breeze to see exactly what the post you're referring to says in whole and in context (which may be why you don't want to do this). It also makes absolutely clear which post you're replying to, which isn't always obvious.

Quote
I have proven that the Hydrogen emission spectral lines could not possibly come from a model which says that electrons orbit the nucleus: they can only come from the subquark colour model, 100% valid model proven to exist.

The old "solar-system" model of the atom was abandoned for all but very general discussions long ago. There's not much for you to "prove" there. You still seem ignorant of the fact that "color" as part of the taxonomy of quarks has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Quote
<more rehashing of deficiency in the Bohr model for detailed analysis - this is not news>

Therefore, the entire spectral emission lines come from the SUBQUARK COLOUR MODEL.

"This long-obsolete model is inadequate, therefore, this wild conjecture has to be right." Um... no.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #133 on: May 26, 2020, 04:10:14 PM »
The Hydrogen emission spectral lines could not have been created by the Bohr atom, but only by the subquark colour model.
They can, but it's irrelevant to the topic. Maybe you're confused with the Rutherford model of the atom.

Quote from: sandokhan
There is no splitting of the light.
Incorrect, as has been shown numerous times!

Quote from: sandokhan
It is the green flash of a capacitor: the Sun is a capacitor.

Rubbish!
You have proven no such thing other than show that a capacitor etc can make a green flash of light, so what?
The source of your image shows it is totally irrelevant to the topic: 20  Bedini-Bearden Years: Free Energy Generation :o

Why is any of this relevant to the "The Green Flash Phenomenon"?

This is just your usual straw-man argument.

The "Green Flash Phenomenon" in simply the white light from the Sun split into its component colours.

Whether or not the "Hydrogen emission spectral lines could . . have been created by the Bohr atom" is irrelevant.
The hydrogen emission spectral lines are:

But sunlight is a continuous spectrum with absorption lines:


If you want to discuss the Rutherford, Bohr and Quantum mechanical models of the atom make up a new thread and don't hi-jack this one!

Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« Reply #134 on: September 05, 2020, 12:41:28 PM »
The green flash on the top of the sun, shows which way the refraction is happening from the gradient pressure atmosphere.
So it confirms we see 180.8 degrees of sky.
So it is like a very weak fish eye lens, no magnification.
It confirms why all space objects appear to slow down as they get low in the sky.
It confirms why the sun get squished only in the vertical when it gets low in the sky.
The blue is omitted, because at those low angles most of that light has been scattered.
Astronomer, photographer, and astro-photographer for 51 years. Satellite observer for 3 years, satellite builder in the 80's. Telescope maker and familiar with optical theory and designs. Machinists and machine tool programmer.