[lonecanislupus]

To avoid a wall of text, I'm going to provide just enough background information to frame my question about the FE model. Should the details of how I got the following numbers be desired, just let me know.

In the RE model, the Sun is a blackbody radiator 1.496×10^8 km from earth with a surface temperature of about 5770K and a radius of 695,700 km. It's Luminosity is about 3.828×10^26 Watts. The irradiance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is about 1363 W/m^2.

Using FE's distance to the sun of 3000 miles (4828 km) and the Sun's known angular size of about 0.5°, it has a radius of about 22.45 km. Using this, the Stefan-Boltzman law, and the 4828 km, the FE model has the same irradiance when the sun is overhead (1363 W/m^2).

However, the irradiance varies considerably when not overhead. For example, say the sun is overhead in Miami around noon, and it's around 9am in Las Angeles 3763 km away. Assume clear skies in both cities. At that distance, line of site distance from LA to the sun is about 6121 km. Because radiation drops as an inverse square of the distance, normal incident irradiance in a vacuum at LA would be about 847.9 W/m^2. But in reality there is still an atmosphere, and the radiation has to travel through even more of it. Assuming the same ratio of atmospheric loss though (1000/1363), the ballpark number would be around 622 W/m^2.

Irradiance does not vary this much in reality. Take for example data from normal incident pyrheliometers in Albuquerque, New Mexico on a clear day. The direct irradiance at 9am does not drop much lower than 1000 W/m^2 at noon (last figure on the website):
http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Book/chapter02/chapter02.html

How does the FE model account for this?

[lonecanislupus]

How does the FE model account for this?

It doesn't.

That was my suspicion, but I think my thoughts go without saying. I'm just wondering if the proposals will be mostly that the data is a conspiracy or that the sun isn't a spherical blackbody radiator.

[Rounder]

To avoid a wall of text, I'm going to provide just enough background information to frame my question about the FE model. Should the details of how I got the following numbers be desired, just let me know.

Avoiding a wall of text might be a good idea.  I created just such a wall of text on this very topic last year and nobody responded to it.

[lonecanislupus]

To avoid a wall of text, I'm going to provide just enough background information to frame my question about the FE model. Should the details of how I got the following numbers be desired, just let me know.

Avoiding a wall of text might be a good idea.  I created just such a wall of text on this very topic last year and nobody responded to it.

In an ideal world, it might be a good idea but so far it's still crickets. I imagine it probably has more to do with a lack of background than anything. It's not as easy to come up with an ad hoc explanation against something you don't understand.

I'm sure a plausible model could be proposed, but it would require a sun with complicated geometries and maybe one that can't reasonably be modeled as a blackbody radiator. In either case, someone like Bishop could justify it with some asinine argument about astronomers not being scientists. No such argument could be used against the inverse square law though. That is verifiable with electromagnetic radiation here on Earth and is derivable from first principles. Even if one were to assume exotic non-blackbody matter, the inverse square law would complicate things for the geometry and distance of the sun.

[3DGeek]

To avoid a wall of text, I'm going to provide just enough background information to frame my question about the FE model. Should the details of how I got the following numbers be desired, just let me know.

Avoiding a wall of text might be a good idea.  I created just such a wall of text on this very topic last year and nobody responded to it.

In an ideal world, it might be a good idea but so far it's still crickets. I imagine it probably has more to do with a lack of background than anything. It's not as easy to come up with an ad hoc explanation against something you don't understand.

I'm sure a plausible model could be proposed, but it would require a sun with complicated geometries and maybe one that can't reasonably be modeled as a blackbody radiator. In either case, someone like Bishop could justify it with some asinine argument about astronomers not being scientists. No such argument could be used against the inverse square law though. That is verifiable with electromagnetic radiation here on Earth and is derivable from first principles. Even if one were to assume exotic non-blackbody matter, the inverse square law would complicate things for the geometry and distance of the sun.

I find that the simplest arguments are the best.

There are so many gaping holes in FET that it's ridiculously easy to find rock-solid disproofs.

The apparent rotation of the moon as seen from the northern hemisphere, the equator and the southern hemisphere is by far the simplest, unassailable proof that I can find...but the apparent motion of the stars over the surface of the Earth is another.

These are SIMPLE things to observe - but they require you to have travelled and been curious enough to look at the sky when you go to distant places.   From what I can tell, FE believers do not travel far - and by far the majority (perhaps all of them) live in the Northern hemisphere - where their chosen map is less far from reality than in the South.

If they were honest with themselves - opened their eyes - and travelled far enough - the evidence would be there for them to see.

Instead, they'll simply accuse RE'ers of faking evidence, "photoshopping" pictures, etc, etc.

So we're left with evidence that can be extracted by other means.

[lonecanislupus]

I find that the simplest arguments are the best.

For getting FE'ers to reconsider their positions?

Instead, they'll simply accuse RE'ers of faking evidence, "photoshopping" pictures, etc, etc.

So we're left with evidence that can be extracted by other means.

Which is why I like more abstract phenomenon like this example of blackbody radiation. Science isn't just about what we can personally observe. There's also phenomenon that we need technology to quantify.

The first FE'er I encountered was on Facebook and the argument that ended up being effective was about radio communication. It didn't necessarily change his mind but he admitted he didn't know how to answer it and the conversation ended there. My question was why it wasn't possible to have a conversation with anyone at anytime on a flat Earth by simply going to a tall place with a HAM? Why do tricks like relays or bouncing off the ionosphere at ideal times have to be used on a flat Earth?