41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Production of solar panels near sunset

« on: January 06, 2019, 03:25:51 AM »

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?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Production of solar panels near sunset

« on: January 06, 2019, 02:58:49 AM »

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:



Unless the EA model is going to claim that the sun is 93 million miles up and its light curves by the equation then the distance will change.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Production of solar panels near sunset

« on: January 05, 2019, 05:14:33 PM »

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.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Production of solar panels near sunset

« on: January 05, 2019, 05:02:39 PM »

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.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Production of solar panels near sunset

« on: January 05, 2019, 01:11:04 AM »

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.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Production of solar panels near sunset

« 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.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:47:34 PM »

Lets answer this question: Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

Do you, as Elucid asserts would happen under his model, believe that they have become one to your vision at an infinite distance away?

If you agree that the railroad tracks merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.

Let's table this for now; I know that arguing against perspective without preparation is a lost cause. You should address my other point, i.e. the hang gliding by cloud one.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:37:29 PM »

Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?

We're not seeing reflected light. Do you see the landscape miles away when it's overcast?

Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd agree with Tom that clouds illuminated by the sun are reflecting the sun's light. Clouds aren't self-illuminating. The reddish glow on the underside of clouds is reflected light from the sun setting or rising.

"Mirror" might be an exaggeration since we aren't seeing the sun in the clouds, but we are seeing the reflected light from the sun on the clouds.

My question, though, however you want to put is, is how is the sun getting an angle on the "mirror" for its light to be reflected? Perspective doesn't gain the sun that angle.

It's only "reflected" in the sense that moonlight is reflected sunlight. Clouds are colloids, they scatter light.


Tom, riddle me this: if I'm hang-gliding from the center of a cumulus cloud, then it will extend almost to eye level from my POV, and probably below eye level depending on the topography of the bottom. If the horizon extends up to eye level, then how does the sun fit between the horizon and the cloud?

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:09:33 PM »

Clouds aren't mirrors.

Sure they are. You don't believe that we are seeing reflected light?

We're not seeing reflected light. Do you see the landscape miles away when it's overcast?

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 09:46:24 PM »

But the FEH perspective hypothesis says the clouds are 'seeing' the sun at the horizon, thus the light is coming up from that 'level' to strike them. This is part of why Bobby (and myself tbh) feel the 'bendy light' hypothesis works better for FE, than perspective. FE perspective is basically 'the Earth is flat, so this is how things must be' and is thus near impossible to falsify or prove. 'Bendy light' has the potential for both of those things to be true of it. Which tbh is probably why it fell out of favor.

Gee, it's almost like light bends with the differential equation dy/dx ∝ y²sin(x-x₀).

Seriously though, if light doesn't go in straight lines, then how does it move and how does it preserve Newton's third law?

If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?

You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon

Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.

If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.

Clouds aren't mirrors.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 09:28:23 PM »

If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?

You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon

Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 08:53:52 PM »

If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?

You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

FYI, I edited your post/image to a different version that doesn't include the geotags. I assume you don't want people knowing exactly where you live.

I thought that I blocked location services to Camera… either way thanks.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 06:44:05 PM »

This morning I caught a photo of some beautifully-lit clouds:



Those clouds are lit from the bottom, and in fact appear brighter than the white things in the image. The lit sides face the sunrise, which suggests that they are being lit by the sun.

I don't think that a sun that's thousands of miles high can light clouds that are less than 10 miles high, but I'm curious to hear what that the FE side makes of this.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Other confirmations of general relativity

« on: September 05, 2018, 06:46:42 PM »

Ah yes, the patterns that are much greater in amplitude than the regular noise, have the exact spectrographs predicted by the equations, and whose delays between facilities indicate a specific direction in which astronomers can point telescopes and see the aftermath of a neutron star collision, are obviously not actually gravitational waves from such an event; they're obviously just completely random noise that tells us nothing.

If it looks like a duck, and it sounds like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Other confirmations of general relativity

« on: September 05, 2018, 02:50:23 PM »

Over on another thread I saw most of a page of arguing over the credibility of the solar eclipse experiments to confirm general relativity. The problem that I see with that, is that the math has been confirmed in many other ways, including:

• Observation of gravitational waves by LIGO (Did nobody think to mention this? 'Twas all over the news a while back.)
• Experimental confirmation of special relativity (Since general relativity is a requirement for special relativity when in an accelerating reference frame.)
• Astronomical observation of gravitational redshift (Someone found a bright star in an eccentric orbit around Saggitarius A* and observed its spectrum as it went around periapsis, accounting for Doppler shift and time dilation from velocity.)
• Earthbound observation of gravitational redshift (Someone shot a laser up a long pole and recorded measurable differences in wavelength between the top and bottom.)

All these will need to be rejected if GR should be overturned.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall and the Cretaceous Period

« on: May 25, 2018, 05:51:03 PM »

Well, technically FET contends that Antarctica is the ice wall.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall and the Cretaceous Period

« on: May 25, 2018, 05:00:32 PM »

I'd presume that the lack of ice caps was hypothesized from distributions of sea life determining sea level, and guesses to average worldwide temperature.

So there could have been an ice wall in the Cretaceous, it just would have been farther from the North Pole.

58

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 03:10:50 PM »

- I can continue to ask for evidence of the admitted hypothesis

Go ask an art teacher how far away the vanishing point is. There is also a model to show it on this very forum.

- I can point out the assumptions.

Again, you can't just assume that a working model for any distance you test will break down at a distance. Russel's teapot and Occam's razor both say no.

- I can argue by incredulity.

So could an art teacher. News flash: not everything makes sense.

59

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:44:01 PM »

But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.

Tested over different distances, perhaps (based on what study and what exact results?), but the lines may eventually merge. Who showed that they continue infinitely and ad infinitum?

Nobody showed that they go on forever. However, since it works for near distances, you need to show that they don't continue infinitely.

60

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:24:22 PM »

But if we can't experiment on that concept of the infinite perspective lines how do we know that the universe plays by those rules? Numerous assumptions are being made about perspective.

Since it is widely admitted that we can't really experiment on such things, we are really just discussing a hypothesis.

A hypothesis that you will need to prove wrong yourself, not demand proof for. It's already been proven experimentally over many different distances.