The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on January 04, 2019, 09:18:37 PM
-
So I came up with this experiment today involving the change in distance to the sun, as well as the sunset in general. Basically, even if the sun appears larger from magnification, the outflow with respect to area to any point needs to remain proportional in order to conserve energy. This outflow, and therefore changes in distance, can be measured easily with a solar panel.
Therefore, I propose the following set of hypotheses:
Round Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will rise sharply at sunrise; remain constant within a 20% margin throughout the day; and fall sharply at sunset.
Flat Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will continuously increase between sunrise and solar noon; continuously decrease between solar noon and sunset; and have 2 points of inflection.
Null Hypothesis: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will not match either of the above models.
Before I go collect data for this, I'd like each side to confirm their hypotheses.
-
So I came up with this experiment today involving the change in distance to the sun, as well as the sunset in general. Basically, even if the sun appears larger from magnification, the outflow with respect to area to any point needs to remain proportional in order to conserve energy. This outflow, and therefore changes in distance, can be measured easily with a solar panel.
Therefore, I propose the following set of hypotheses:
Round Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will rise sharply at sunrise; remain constant within a 20% margin throughout the day; and fall sharply at sunset.
Flat Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will continuously increase between sunrise and solar noon; continuously decrease between solar noon and sunset; and have 2 points of inflection.
Null Hypothesis: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will not match either of the above models.
Before I go collect data for this, I'd like each side to confirm their hypotheses.
Solar electric generation hypothesis are independent of the shape of the earth. Trying to combine the two does not make a lot of sense. Here is a more accurate set of hypothesis for this situation to include the shape of the earth to illustrate my point:
Round Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will rise sharply at sunrise; remain constant within a 20% margin throughout the day; and fall sharply at sunset.
Round Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will continuously increase between sunrise and solar noon; continuously decrease between solar noon and sunset; and have 2 points of inflection.
Flat Earth: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will continuously increase between sunrise and solar noon; continuously decrease between solar noon and sunset; and have 2 points of inflection.
Flat Earth: he power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will rise sharply at sunrise; remain constant within a 20% margin throughout the day; and fall sharply at sunset.
Null Hypothesis: The power generation for a near-ideal sun-tracking solar panel on a sunny day will not match any of the above models
-
I don't see your point there. My general idea was that for RE the distance to the sun changes very little, and for FE the distance to the sun changes by orders of magnitude.
-
You're missing a FE+EA hypothesis, which you can easily introduce by copy/pasting your RE hypothesis
-
You're missing a FE+EA hypothesis, which you can easily introduce by copy/pasting your RE hypothesis
Unfortunately that's wrong. If the power per square meter is the same at any distance then one could easily violate conservation of energy.
-
If the power per square meter is the same at any distance
Luckily, that's not what anyone is suggesting.
-
If the power per square meter is the same at any distance
Luckily, that's not what anyone is suggesting.
Then how would the electromagnetic accelerator model get any different result from the normal FET one? The distance to the sun is still changing by large factors between noon & sunset.
-
It would be changing at the exact same rate as in the RET scenario.
-
It would be changing at the exact same rate as in the RET scenario.
I don't get how that would fit in with this model though:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/SunAnimation.gif/240px-SunAnimation.gif)
Unless the EA model is going to claim that the sun is 93 million miles up and its light curves by the equation (http://mathurl.com/yd3flte2.png) then the distance will change.
-
In the northern areas the sun's area of light either overlaps, or passes over less frequently and evenly, depending on the season.
I predict that, at areas near the tropics/the equator, at least, it will look somewhat like a bell curve and will not be constant like an RET may predict.
-
I predict that, at areas nearish the equator at least, it will look somewhat like a bell curve and will not be constant like an RET might predict.
That's exactly the hypothesis that I had down for FE, but I guess a little more concise.
Also, I realize that there would very likely be data that fits both models, so maybe an extra restriction for the FET model: at least two points must exist with at least a 5:1 ratio that are both at least 30 minutes from either sunrise or sunset?
I'm not sure what it would look like as the sun merges with the horizon, but the graph should look something like this, right?
(https://imgur.com/XiEDUsO.gif)
-
Yes. My prediction is some sort of hump shape.
-
You're missing a FE+EA hypothesis, which you can easily introduce by copy/pasting your RE hypothesis
Unfortunately that's wrong. If the power per square meter is the same at any distance then one could easily violate conservation of energy.
I was under the impression that it's less about distance and more about the amount of air that the sunlight has to pass through. During sunrise and sunset I can look at the sun. I always thought that this is because the sunlight has to go to much more air to hit my eyes regardless of the shape of the earth.
-
During sunrise and sunset I can look at the sun. I always thought that this is because the sunlight has to go to much more air to hit my eyes regardless of the shape of the earth.
Weird, I've only found that possible when there's smoke (usually from far-away wildfires) on the horizon.
-
During sunrise and sunset I can look at the sun. I always thought that this is because the sunlight has to go to much more air to hit my eyes regardless of the shape of the earth.
Weird, I've only found that possible when there's smoke (usually from far-away wildfires) on the horizon.
I've never heard of that before. In fact there is an event called manhattanhenge which takes place in new york in which thousands and thousands of people go to watch the sunrise and sunset without using special solar lenses.
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/5/21/17377030/manhattanhenge-2018-nyc-where-to-watch-dates-times
Notice the picture with hundreds of people looking at the sun?
A similar thing happens at stonehenge during the soltice
https://earthsky.org/earth/gallery-the-summer-solstice-as-seen-from-stonehenge
Thousands of people all come to watch the sun, when it's at a very low position in the sky.
Have you tried speaking with an Optometrist and asking why you have difficulty watching a sunset/sunrise when the sun is very low?