Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2018, 12:46:11 AM »
What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.

tbh 100% polarized doesn't make any sense.  polarization isn't a thing that is fractional.  polarization describes the orientation of em waves.

i'm guessing you're thinking of the "100% uv protection" thing that sunglasses advertise for their lenses.  that's not relevant to your image, though.

Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is a solid object where every point from the sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. As a solid body, one should expect to see all parts of the sun with equal intensity.

no, you wouldn't.  the sun is a sphere.  draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux).  now rotate the sphere.  from your perspective, what happens to the box?  the projected area of the box shrinks.

here's an example.  notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere.  if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges. 

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2018, 12:52:04 AM »
no, you wouldn't.  the sun is a sphere.  draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux).  now rotate the sphere.  from your perspective, what happens to the box?  the projected area of the box shrinks.

here's an example.  notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere.  if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges. 

If we are seeing more miles of the sun's surface per pixel near the edges, then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2018, 12:53:36 AM »
no, you wouldn't.  the sun is a sphere.  draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux).  now rotate the sphere.  from your perspective, what happens to the box?  the projected area of the box shrinks.

here's an example.  notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere.  if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges. 

Then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.

what?  that doesn't make any sense at all.  smaller area means less flux.  you are seeing less area at the edges.  look at the image i posted.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2018, 12:55:41 AM »
no, you wouldn't.  the sun is a sphere.  draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux).  now rotate the sphere.  from your perspective, what happens to the box?  the projected area of the box shrinks.

here's an example.  notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere.  if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges. 

Then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.

what?  that doesn't make any sense at all.  smaller area means less flux.  you are seeing less area at the edges.  look at the image i posted.

I looked at the image. The countries get smooshed together at the edges. Around the edges you are seeing more miles per pixel.

If the sun is a sphere then we are seeing more miles per pixel near the edges of the sun, and so that is where it should be the brightest.

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2018, 01:07:41 AM »
I looked at the image. The countries get smooshed together at the edges. Around the edges you are seeing more miles per pixel.

If the sun is a sphere then we are seeing more miles per pixel near the edges of the sun, and so that is where it should be the brightest.

lol.  more miles per pixel.  okay.  i'll let you think about that one for a bit. 

the total flux in this case is given by flux density * area, and the flux density is constant.  if the area shrinks, then the total flux shrinks, too.  by definition.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2018, 02:07:42 AM »
But the area per pixel/arcsecond increased at the edges, so the intensity should increase when you are looking at more area. You are looking at more area of the sun when you are looking at its edges.

Photons are additive. See the following from physics.stackexchange.com:

Quote
However, the amplitude of a light wave depends on the number of photons per second being emitted. The greater the amplitude of a certain type of light, the greater the number of photons per second of that type of light. So if you want to compare intensity of similar types of light, the amplitude is the variable of choice.

When light waves interfere with each other, areas of greater intensity result when photons pile on top of each other, and this is measured by the greater amplitude.

Since you are looking at more area per pixel/arcsecond near the edges, the photons should build up there.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2018, 06:40:52 AM »
What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.
Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.

Quote
The filtered images of the sun as a disc that you are talking about are not consistently bright, suggesting that it is not a solid body.
Nothing to do with what we're talking about, but OK. I thought the FE sun was also a ball which light shines out of in equal directions, the spotlight effect is merely an effect of your made up perspective model. So if that is a problem, it's a problem for you too.
That Wiki page is just another example of you not understanding something and thinking that you have discovered a problem in RE. You haven't.
In brief, the sun is not a simple lightbulb. If you filter it you see all kinds of complexities in its surface.

Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2018, 07:02:19 AM »
Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.

Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."

Quote
That Wiki page is just another example of you not understanding something and thinking that you have discovered a problem in RE. You haven't.

It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.

They had to make the outer visible layer of the sun, the Photosphere, super cold... at only about 6000 degrees Celsius compared to the much hotter Chromosphere, the sun's atmosphere, which is seen as a wispy cloud at total Solar Eclipse, at up to several million degrees Kelvin, and compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the inner center. They also had to make the outer Photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm

Quote
The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. The solution will help scientists better understand the heating of other stars.

"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense!" —Dr David H. Brooks (George Mason University)

Also: The Mystery of the Chromosphere
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 07:25:54 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2018, 07:17:47 AM »
But the area per pixel/arcsecond increased at the edges, so the intensity should increase when you are looking at more area. You are looking at more area of the sun when you are looking at its edges.

Photons are additive. See the following from physics.stackexchange.com:

Quote
However, the amplitude of a light wave depends on the number of photons per second being emitted. The greater the amplitude of a certain type of light, the greater the number of photons per second of that type of light. So if you want to compare intensity of similar types of light, the amplitude is the variable of choice.

When light waves interfere with each other, areas of greater intensity result when photons pile on top of each other, and this is measured by the greater amplitude.

Since you are looking at more area per pixel/arcsecond near the edges, the photons should build up there.
Simple experiment.

If you have a flat light, or watch a white screen tv set in a dark room, you can see the TV from the side and see way more pixels in a smaller area...
Now, if you take a look at the light emitted by the TV, does it look to be brighter at areas straight to the left and right of it, or brighter in front of it?

Use any example you wish of a surface light, and you will see the same result, it is lighter in front than at the sides, meaning your logic doesn't make sense in the real world.

I do get your logic though, but in this case it doesn't work like that.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2018, 07:25:41 AM »
Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is that direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."
I'm pretty sure that isn't what polarized lenses do, and at best they will cut out half the light - because light can be polarized in two directions - which means yes, they will reduce glare but they do not completely eliminate it and your "examples" prove that, you can clearly see glare in those photos. Try looking at the sun with polarized sunglasses on, see how that goes (actually, don't, you'll probably damage your eyesight). A proper solar filter eliminates almost ALL the light, it has to because the sun is so bright.
https://www.celestron.com/blogs/knowledgebase/how-does-a-solar-filter-work

Quote
It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.
Far as I understood your sun is the same as the RE one, just smaller and closer and powered by...something. So why is this not a problem for FE too?
I'm not saying that everything about the sun is understood. Or, if it is, it's not understood by me. But I don't see what point you're making. I mean, you don't understand anything about your made up sun. You don't know how it's powered, why it goes in the orbit it does, what force keeps changing its orbit - if it's going in a circle there must be a force to make it do so, and forces to keep changing height and orbit diameter to cause seasons and moon phases. Your answer to all of this is "unknown". Yet you're claiming that some gaps in knowledge in real science are in some way telling? We understand a lot more than we used to about all kinds of things but it would be arrogant to think we've understood everything. That doesn't mean that everything we've discovered is wrong.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Jon56

  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2018, 08:53:14 AM »
So bringing this back to the original title. And how I got interested in the topic was to further understand the current understanding of gravity in a flat earth.
I’ve been told it’s due to UA. Ok that’s good. I’ve been told that there is this notional CG that explains the tides. I made a bit of a light hearted suggestion that what happens when we stop accelerating. I was told about Special relativity and good old Eisenstein and I needed to understand this. He was the one that said a rightly so that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable to the observer within the bounds of the observers reality.
However the problem comes with the oft quote E= mc^2.
The way you need to understand this is that mass increases the faster you get. Now at slow speeds of which we are always working at it makes little difference to our ways of calculating such things as trajectory of canon balls etc. We can use Newton for that.
However it does when you start looking at the mass of the earth and the UA theory. The closer any object gets to the speed of light the greater it’s mass becomes until such a point that it has infinite mass and therefore requires an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any further.
I believe this is the point the OP some while ago was trying to make and something that I was trying to resolve.

The accurate clock link given had nothing really to do with this other than to confirm the theory of general relativity which also stated that gravity has an affect on time.

You see I really do understand the general theory of relativity and how UA couldn’t possibly work. Well not in this universe. As currently we are now happy to accept that there is a high probability that there are an infinite amount of universes which we will never get too and these in all probability will have different laws of physics and may well support a working model that allows for a flat earth system.

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #51 on: July 10, 2018, 01:50:51 PM »
actually come to think of it, my explanation for limb darkening is not right.  as a source of flux, the sun's surface brightness should be constant.  it's dimmer near the edges for a different reason

Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."

no.  polarization is about the orientation of a light wave wrt the direction of propagation.  polarized lenses filter out some range of orientations.  if the object is super bright, it can still be super bright in the orientations that are not filtered out.

It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.

They had to make the outer visible layer of the sun, the Photosphere, super cold... at only about 6000 degrees Celsius compared to the much hotter Chromosphere, the sun's atmosphere, which is seen as a wispy cloud at total Solar Eclipse, at up to several million degrees Kelvin, and compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the inner center. They also had to make the outer Photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm

this is a different thing altogether.  i mean you're correct that the sun's atmosphere is super puzzling to physicists, but that's not why the limb of the disk appears to darken.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #52 on: July 10, 2018, 02:59:21 PM »
Fantastic logic. Your assumptions are "there's no need to consider reality if I can just divide numbers by one another".

Why not multiply them, instead? You'll be equally correct. Wait, no, let's add them! That will be fun!

Special Relativity is absolutely essential here. If you really want to identify which of your statements is wrong, it's the first one - because you didn't specify the frame of reference, and coincidentally happened to switcheroo between two of them throughout your reasoning.

In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #53 on: July 10, 2018, 03:28:21 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Offline Jon56

  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #54 on: July 10, 2018, 04:02:59 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.
Yes please that would be perfect a few things first as to do this properly we need to agree on certain things OK
I will agree for sake of argument the the earth plane is accelerating at a constant rate of change of 9.81 m/ss.

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2018, 12:58:07 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #56 on: July 11, 2018, 08:37:53 PM »
In the UA model, how do you account for falling objects falling at different speeds based on mass and drag?  It seems to me that if the ground was racing up to meet them mass/drag would be irrelevant.

The same reason as described in RET/Gravity.  why wouldnt air/drag affect an object?  both the air, ground and object all have an initial velocity moving upward.  so of course the object coming back down would see the same effects.  if you did the same test in a vacuum then yes, the results will be same, which is obvious in either RET or UA

lets argue about UA as described by FET, not someone's personal opinion about what they think UA describes.

Is the ground pushing the air up or is the air also being pushed by UA?

everything is moving up together as one, similar to RET with the spinning globe and air moving with it.
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2018, 08:38:35 PM »

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

of course
Quote from: SiDawg
Planes fall out of the sky all the time

Offline Jon56

  • *
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2018, 09:25:10 PM »

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10174
    • View Profile
Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2018, 09:42:02 PM »

Now in FE does the speed of light remain constant?
Does the formula E=mc^2  hold true.

of course
Ah most excellent so the earth has been accelerating at a constant 9.8 m/ss for a number of years.
So what speed are we currently accelerating from and to?

Why don't you do the math? It only takes a few moments.