-
So, I'm kinda new to the flat earth theory, and have many questions.
In the FE model, I understand that the sun and Moon are smaller and closer than that of the spherical model, but is the sun a point optical source or a spherical optical source?
I've heard differing opinions among the various videos on YouTube.
Can someone let me know the correct "shape" of the sun and Moon in the FE model?
Thanks.
-
The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
-
So, I'm kinda new to the flat earth theory, and have many questions.
In the FE model, I understand that the sun and Moon are smaller and closer than that of the spherical model, but is the sun a point optical source or a spherical optical source?
I've heard differing opinions among the various videos on YouTube.
Can someone let me know the correct "shape" of the sun and Moon in the FE model?
Thanks.
Your best source would be from an astronomical observatory. They welcome questions such as this. But if you are a confirmed flat earther, forget it. You would probably say they are liars, demons, demon possessed, satanics, satan worshippers and part of the "Great Round Earth Conspiracy" to conceal the fact that the earth is flat.
But if you are not a flat earth believer you would find astronomical observatories to be a great source of information such as the correct size, shape and distance from the earth of the sun and the moon.
FE can give you their fantasy version.
-
Your best source would be from an astronomical observatory.
Exactly.
Here is something even better: real time videos and photographs of the solar/lunar ISS/Atlantis transits:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81131#msg81131
-
Macca, if you are looking for your post, I moved it here:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4474.0
-
So, I'm kinda new to the flat earth theory, and have many questions.
In the FE model, I understand that the sun and Moon are smaller and closer than that of the spherical model, but is the sun a point optical source or a spherical optical source?
I've heard differing opinions among the various videos on YouTube.
Can someone let me know the correct "shape" of the sun and Moon in the FE model?
Thanks.
Your best source would be from an astronomical observatory. They welcome questions such as this. But if you are a confirmed flat earther, forget it. You would probably say they are liars, demons, demon possessed, satanics, satan worshippers and part of the "Great Round Earth Conspiracy" to conceal the fact that the earth is flat.
But if you are not a flat earth believer you would find astronomical observatories to be a great source of information such as the correct size, shape and distance from the earth of the sun and the moon.
FE can give you their fantasy version.
Such coarse statements.
Scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists alike have all been misled just as the general population.
You are making blanket statements within your argument that do not follow ALL flat earth beliefs.
In short, no, not all FE's believe scientists are evil Satan worshipping demons. That's in your head. Just because some have said that doesn't mean that's the consensus within the FE community.
Besides, its the governing bodies that are the liars, not the employees.
Notice I didn't say devil worshippers or demons. I did say liars.
Men lie. It's been proven. Have you ever lied? Do you still lie?
Besides the OP asked about FE model specifically. Not the difference between RE and FE.
I know it is difficult to keep up, you know with trying to be the first to answer with such a witty remark as yours. But you in fact missed the question presented.
-
In order to be sure that the shape of the Sun cannot be spherical, we need very precise proofs:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81284#msg81284 (solar atmospheric pressure paradox)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)
-
The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
So why does this 'correct data" seem to contradict so many other opinions available?
I'm sure this has been asked before, but if the sun is a disk, why does it appear round everywhere on Earth? If the sun was a disk, it could only appear round at one place on the earth and oval everywhere else?
-
The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
So why does this 'correct data" seem to contradict so many other opinions available?
I'm sure this has been asked before, but if the sun is a disk, why does it appear round everywhere on Earth? If the sun was a disk, it could only appear round at one place on the earth and oval everywhere else?
Beware of Sandokhan. He's an interesting fellow, but a peculiar one none-the-less. He has essentially lamented standard flat earth theory and constructed his own, so take what he says with a grain of salt. His opinions and ideas don't reflect the community at large, in-so-far as I can tell.
-
The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
As I have said before your map is of no practical value to users (travellers, navigators etc) without latitudes and longitudes marked on it.
Also, how are the scientists at large to learn "the truth" if you keep it locked away in a small forum.
I also have to wonder how a sun only 15-20 km high and 600 m in diam can always look a perfect circle and always the same size from sunrise to sunset!
-
So, I'm kinda new to the flat earth theory, and have many questions.
In the FE model, I understand that the sun and Moon are smaller and closer than that of the spherical model, but is the sun a point optical source or a spherical optical source?
I've heard differing opinions among the various videos on YouTube.
Can someone let me know the correct "shape" of the sun and Moon in the FE model?
Thanks.
Your best source would be from an astronomical observatory. They welcome questions such as this. But if you are a confirmed flat earther, forget it. You would probably say they are liars, demons, demon possessed, satanics, satan worshippers and part of the "Great Round Earth Conspiracy" to conceal the fact that the earth is flat.
But if you are not a flat earth believer you would find astronomical observatories to be a great source of information such as the correct size, shape and distance from the earth of the sun and the moon.
FE can give you their fantasy version.
Such coarse statements.
Scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists alike have all been misled just as the general population.
You are making blanket statements within your argument that do not follow ALL flat earth beliefs.
In short, no, not all FE's believe scientists are evil Satan worshipping demons. That's in your head. Just because some have said that doesn't mean that's the consensus within the FE community.
Besides, its the governing bodies that are the liars, not the employees.
Notice I didn't say devil worshippers or demons. I did say liars.
Men lie. It's been proven. Have you ever lied? Do you still lie?
Besides the OP asked about FE model specifically. Not the difference between RE and FE.
I know it is difficult to keep up, you know with trying to be the first to answer with such a witty remark as yours. But you in fact missed the question presented.
Corse statements indeed, but you are also victim of your own course statements.
By your own admission you say men lie, so you could be lying also? No? So if you are not lying you must be...not a man? So what's left, a woman? Are you a woman then? Do women not lie?
You make great blanket assumptions about scientists. So just to clarify, are you saying that all scientists work for government agencies? And you know this for a fact? Where is your source for this data?
Because these are the governing bodies you mention that keep the lie going, correct? Not the employees? It's the governing bodies that are responsible for the lie or misleading the scientists, astrophysicist and others, correct?
And do you believe that scientists are incapable of making their own decisions? Because of the governments influence? I mean if you are capable of going against the "mind control" and influence and lies of the government, then perhaps surely a few scientists can resist and let the truth be known. Are you somehow special that you can withstand the powers of the government and others cannot? What's your secret? A tin foil hat? ;)
So why are there no scientists that have come out with this shocking truth that the earth is indeed flat? I mean all this time has passed, surely there can be some type of uprising In provoked thought that would warrant the out speaking of the scientists?? No? Maybe the scientists they don't like wearing tin foil hats.
-
The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
sandokhan, I do have one genuine question.
I've seen you state that your hypothesis has been tested in real time debates. Do you have any interest going forward with your model on a more official scale than just debates on FES forums?
-
A book? Or a youtube video?
-
A book? Or a youtube video?
I was thinking more in lines of scientific institutions with a proper budget or similar
-
Sandokhan,
do you have a youtube channel or already have posted videos out there?
-
I believe the sun and moon are spherical.
-
I believe the sun and moon are spherical.
In the FE model or your personal belief?
-
Also, can anyone who subscribes to the FE model answer how the sun can be disc shaped in the FE model, but can appear perfectly round from all observation points on Earth?
This question has been asked many times in many topics, but I cannot seem to find a single succinct answer.
-
...but is the sun a point optical source or a spherical optical source?
Neither. It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.
Can someone let me know the correct "shape" of the sun and Moon in the FE model?
It is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see.
-
...but is the sun a point optical source or a spherical optical source?
Neither. It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.
Can someone let me know the correct "shape" of the sun and Moon in the FE model?
It is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see.
Please tell me what Zetetic observation lead you to this amazing conclusion: "The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays."
So the moon's shape "is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see."
The full moon looks round from all locations (when it is visible) on the earth. There is only one object shape that has that property and that is a sphere.
Also the moon's size is the same is the same for all viewers, so it must be a very great distance away!
That's the result of simple Zetetic observation!
-
Also the moon's size is the same is the same for all viewers, so it must be a very great distance away!
Please read the Wiki on the size of the sun and moon.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
-
Also the moon's size is the same is the same for all viewers, so it must be a very great distance away!
Please read the Wiki on the size of the sun and moon.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Please show some evidence that air can magnify anything something like FOUR TIMES.
And, no unless you are still stuck centuries back, the refractive index of air is around 1.000293! It does vary with wavelength, but not over 1.000305. Kight might be bent up to 0.5° or so, but that's all!
Sometimes I think that the only thing "Zetetic" about Flat Earth beliefs is "The earth looks flat", then everything else is guessed or bent to try to explain away the differences.
This differs from the scientific method, which did start off with exactly the same conclusion, because "The earth looks flat" - it does and it was assumed to be stationary.
But, then more observations were made and some of those did not fit with the "Flat Earth" hypothesis - well you know the rest!
It's not much point preaching to the converted, or to the unconvertable.
BTW The nearest refence in the Wiki seems to be under "Constant Speed of the Sun", where all it talks about is a completely erroneous description of perspective - unless you go back to bendy light.
Still if you want to close you society to any chance of acceptance in the "more scientific" community, just stick to these ideas that go completely against all the discoveries on light propagation and so many other well accept "theories".
-
Neither. It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.
So if you're saying the sun is not the "source" of daylight, what then is?
Also, the shape of the sun is totally relevant to the shape of the Earth!
It is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see.
I have, the sun appears round in shape all day so it must either be:
- a disc that is perfectly centered (aimed) on my specific location at all times during the day, even when I travel, or
- a sphere
If the sun is a disc close to Earth it cannot appear as a round shape from all points on a flat earth. Simple observation tells me this is not true.
If the sun is a sphere it will cast daylight on all points of a flat earth all of the time. Simple observation tells me this is not true as it is currently night outside.
-
Please show some evidence that air can magnify anything something like FOUR TIMES.
And, no unless you are still stuck centuries back, the refractive index of air is around 1.000293! It does vary with wavelength, but not over 1.000305. Kight might be bent up to 0.5° or so, but that's all!
There are several examples that air can magnify in the article.
If the sun is a sphere it will cast daylight on all points of a flat earth all of the time. Simple observation tells me this is not true as it is currently night outside.
You apparently have not bothered to read any of our material.
-
Neither. It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.
So if you're saying the sun is not the "source" of daylight, what then is?
Nobody knows.
Also, the shape of the sun is totally relevant to the shape of the Earth!
The shape of the sun does not change the shape of the earth.
It is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see.
I have, the sun appears round in shape all day so it must either be:
- a disc that is perfectly centered (aimed) on my specific location at all times during the day, even when I travel, or
- a sphere
If the sun is a disc close to Earth it cannot appear as a round shape from all points on a flat earth. Simple observation tells me this is not true.
If the sun is a sphere it will cast daylight on all points of a flat earth all of the time. Simple observation tells me this is not true as it is currently night outside.
Focal point (http://www.reverendfun.com/?date=19980724)
-
You apparently have not bothered to read any of our material.
You apparently have not bothered to debate my point.
Instead you point to the vast material which
- contradicts itself
- makes too many assumptions
- does not grasp the basics of geometry, gravity, physics, maths, chemistry or anything else that may disprove your theory
- varies from one person to the next
- assumes that the region below the equator line cannot exist
Please answer the questions or admit that you cannot.
-
Focal point (http://www.reverendfun.com/?date=19980724)
So the sun is a giant magnifying glass??
That certainly explains the summers in Australia!
-
So the sun is a giant magnifying glass??
No.
I believe the reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror of which the sun is the focal point. The sun's rays are converging down from the firmament.
-
So the sun is a giant magnifying glass??
No.
I believe the reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror of which the sun is the focal point. The sun's rays are converging down from the firmament.
I thought you followed "Zetetic Cosmology". I supposed you have observed this mirror and if the sun is the focal point please explain how we see the sun not as a "point" but as a disc around 0.5° in diameter. And, where is the energy source that this "mirror" is focusing?
Also if "reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror" what makes the sun appear to move?
I am terribly confused trying to follow this, maybe a sketch would help.
This flat earth movement has been around for over 200 years, so how is it that even in glaringly obvious things like the sun, everybody seems to have their own ideas.
Yes, I know you are the Anarchist! What else would we expect?
-
You apparently have not bothered to read any of our material.
You apparently have not bothered to debate my point.
Instead you point to the vast material which
- contradicts itself
- makes too many assumptions
- does not grasp the basics of geometry, gravity, physics, maths, chemistry or anything else that may disprove your theory
- varies from one person to the next
- assumes that the region below the equator line cannot exist
Please answer the questions or admit that you cannot.
Still waiting...
-
You apparently have not bothered to read any of our material.
You apparently have not bothered to debate my point.
Instead you point to the vast material which
- contradicts itself
- makes too many assumptions
- does not grasp the basics of geometry, gravity, physics, maths, chemistry or anything else that may disprove your theory
- varies from one person to the next
- assumes that the region below the equator line cannot exist
Please answer the questions or admit that you cannot.
Still waiting...
Please keep the discussion related to the topic.
-
You apparently have not bothered to read any of our material.
You apparently have not bothered to debate my point.
Instead you point to the vast material which
- contradicts itself
- makes too many assumptions
- does not grasp the basics of geometry, gravity, physics, maths, chemistry or anything else that may disprove your theory
- varies from one person to the next
- assumes that the region below the equator line cannot exist
Please answer the questions or admit that you cannot.
Still waiting...
Please keep the discussion related to the topic.
The topic is debating the Sun and Moon shape.
I have asked several questions of which none you have bothered to answer, instead you point to the vast material which
- contradicts itself
- makes too many assumptions
- does not grasp the basics of geometry, gravity, physics, maths, chemistry or anything else that may disprove your theory
- varies from one person to the next
- assumes that the region below the equator line cannot exist
Please answer the questions or admit that you cannot.
-
Still waiting...
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora, consider this a warning.
It is quite possible that no one wants to reply to you because of the smug sense of superiority you are exhibiting.
-
Please show some evidence that air can magnify anything something like FOUR TIMES.
And, no unless you are still stuck centuries back, the refractive index of air is around 1.000293! It does vary with wavelength, but not over 1.000305. Might might be bent up to 0.5° or so, but that's all!
There are several examples that air can magnify in the article.
This?Distinctness of the Sun
Q. Shouldn't the sun get blurrier if it is being magnified?
A. The sun actually does get a bit fuzzier when it is at the horizon compared to overhead at noonday.
Q. But shouldn't the sun get 4x blurrier if it is increasing its diameter by 4x, for example?
A. No. You are assuming that the sun is being magnified in a similar method as a magnifying glass, where blurriness occurs as a ratio with distance. This is incorrect. The magnification of the sun occurs through a projection. A projection of light is occurring upon the atmolayer between the sun and observer.
I cannot see anything justifying "increasing its diameter by 4x"!
A lot said about the sun claims it is because it is so bright etc, etc. However, exactly the same happens with the moon.
With a clear horizon, the moon (much easier to see when full) seems to rise quite sharp and crisp and stays the same size as over the whole sky till it sets, still the same size and looking crisp and sharp!
The arguments about bright lights looking bigger in the distance do not apply to the moon.
So how does the moon stay the same size as it moves across the sky?
Wiki did not seem a lot of help.
Then I went on and read:Why does the moon look the same to everyone?
Q: Why does the moon and the phases look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?
A: It doesn't. The phase you see varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.
The phase of the moon simply does not depend on your location on earth. True, the moon looks the upside down in one hemisphere compared to the other, but the phase of the moon is exactly the same[1] at every location (where the moon can be seen).
[1] Parallax does allow us to see a slightly different face of the spherical moon at various locations.
-
Neither. It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.
So if you're saying the sun is not the "source" of daylight, what then is?
Also, the shape of the sun is totally relevant to the shape of the Earth!
It is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see.
I have, the sun appears round in shape all day so it must either be:
- a disc that is perfectly centered (aimed) on my specific location at all times during the day, even when I travel, or
- a sphere
If the sun is a disc close to Earth it cannot appear as a round shape from all points on a flat earth. Simple observation tells me this is not true.
If the sun is a sphere it will cast daylight on all points of a flat earth all of the time. Simple observation tells me this is not true as it is currently night outside.
Quick question... Isnt the moon conveniently aimed at us at all times? What would lead you to believe the sun is any different in that regard?
-
Still waiting...
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora, consider this a warning.
It is quite possible that no one wants to reply to you because of the smug sense of superiority you are exhibiting.
Please explain which of the rules this post violated?
-
Neither. It is a good question but irrelevent to the true form of the earth.
The sun is not a "source" but rather a focal point of converging rays.
So if you're saying the sun is not the "source" of daylight, what then is?
Also, the shape of the sun is totally relevant to the shape of the Earth!
It is not a mystery. Just open your eyes, look up in the sky and see for yourself. The models claim no more than what you can see.
I have, the sun appears round in shape all day so it must either be:
- a disc that is perfectly centered (aimed) on my specific location at all times during the day, even when I travel, or
- a sphere
If the sun is a disc close to Earth it cannot appear as a round shape from all points on a flat earth. Simple observation tells me this is not true.
If the sun is a sphere it will cast daylight on all points of a flat earth all of the time. Simple observation tells me this is not true as it is currently night outside.
Quick question... Isnt the moon conveniently aimed at us at all times? What would lead you to believe the sun is any different in that regard?
If the sun is a disk (and not a focal point) and is aimed us us the entire time, there should be light all over a FE model at all times.
-
Still waiting...
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora, consider this a warning.
It is quite possible that no one wants to reply to you because of the smug sense of superiority you are exhibiting.
Please explain which of the rules this post violated?
Rules 3 and 6. Also, please do not argue moderation in the same thread which you were warned. We have a forum dedicated for those topics.
-
my apologies.
-
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
-
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
One of troubles with a disk sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.
A disk would have to appear elliptical when it it not overhead.
We get told that bright lights get bigger in a the distance through a diffusive atmosphere, but this does not explain the crisp sharp sunsets we often often observe, nor does it the explain same effect with the moon which does not have this extreme brightness.
We get told that the atmosphere magnifies the distant sun and moon, but how can that be by the 3 or 4 times needed is never justified.
All we seem to be told is "Look uo the Wiki!" as if that was the ultimate repository of human knowledge!
-
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
One of troubles with heliocentric theory's sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.
Ftfy.
So even though the sun and moon appear the same size from all parts of earth shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face? With that aside, are we instead to believe that even though they appear the same size, it's just an illusion, one is actually 93 million miles away and the other is much closer, and even though their movements look very similar, one revolving around the earth opposite the direction we actually observe, while the other inexplicably stationary? Doesn't it just sound stupid? I guess if you have the chalkboard full of equations you can pass anything off as truth huh.
-
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Beam Divergence
This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/0/0e/Beam_divergence.jpg)
From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence) we read:
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
-
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Beam Divergence
This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/0/0e/Beam_divergence.jpg)
From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence) we read:
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
Thanks Tom, that could explain why the sun appears larger as it sets, but it would still have to be pointed directly at the observer to appear round.
-
the problem with this theory is that if the sun and moon are flat like some of the youtube videos say they are then we wouldn't get the crescent moon we get sometimes
One of troubles with heliocentric theory's sun or moon is that both the sun and moon appear the same size and shape from all parts of the earth.
Ftfy.
So even though the sun and moon appear the same size from all parts of earth shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face? With that aside, are we instead to believe that even though they appear the same size, it's just an illusion, one is actually 93 million miles away and the other is much closer, and even though their movements look very similar, one revolving around the earth opposite the direction we actually observe, while the other inexplicably stationary? Doesn't it just sound stupid? I guess if you have the chalkboard full of equations you can pass anything off as truth huh.
You are sort of correct with "shouldnt the moon in the very least, look smaller from a vantage point in north America when it's over Europe? Even slightly? Shouldn't we ever see a slightly different angle of the face?" The moon is slightly further away at the horizon than when it is overhead. The change in size is around 1.6%, measurable, but hardly noticeable. And, yes again we would see a "slightly different angle of the face" from places on the opposite sides of the earth, visible if comparing photographs.
For someone of earth of course, the sun appears to rotate just once per day and the moon appears to rotate in about 24 hours and 53 minutes.
Most of this movement is the earth's rotation with the moon rotating "backwards" once in a bit over a month.
No, it "doesn't. . . . sound stupid" and no chalkboard full of equations! Gee, must be a couple of decades since I used a chalkboard!
Mind you I completely fail to see how any of the observations of the sun and moon, with eclipses and moon phases fit with a sun and moon "circling" at almost the same height above us.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs
When I try to visuallise this geometry I am afraid it simply does not explain what I observe!
-
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Beam Divergence
This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/0/0e/Beam_divergence.jpg)
From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence) we read:
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
You say "Supposedly 'straight' rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances". There is no "Supposedly straight" about it! The "rays of light" simply are straight! In a diverging beam the light is still travelling in straight lines (unless bent by diffraction or refraction).
This beam divergence is of absolutely no relevance to the supposed "magnification of the Sun at sunset". Of course the rays of light from any light source diverge! In most cases, such as the flat earth sun, the divergence has to be very large to illuminate half the earth! So, why on earth are you bringing lasers into it. The sun is nothing like a laser.
I have never seen anything further removed from the Zetetic idea than the surmise and guesswork that goes into explaining away real observations.
Still, what would I know? Carry on guessing!
-
Despite what you want to think of the effect, that its a result of imperfect craftsmanship, or whatever, the fact is that the effect exists and that laser beams enlarge over distance. The effect is, therefore, a credit to the idea that light rays enlarge over distance as claimed in the Wiki.
-
Despite what you want to think of the effect, that its a result of imperfect craftsmanship, or whatever, the fact is that the effect exists and that laser beams enlarge over distance. The effect is, therefore, a credit to the idea that light rays enlarge over distance as claimed in the Wiki.
Would you please read what is actually said! It was "Of course the rays of light from any light source diverge!
In most cases, such as the flat earth sun, the divergence has to be very large to illuminate half the earth! So, why on earth are you bringing lasers into it."
My claim was that the rays of light travel straight, and that is exactly what they do "unless bent by diffraction or refraction."
Nobody, least of all myself, is claiming that laser beams do not diverge. The light form an common light bulb diverges over about half sphere, enough for a ceiling bulb to illuminate a whole room.
But none of this in any way affects the apparent size of the light source!
You are just so smug in the idea that you know everything, yet make most outrageously incorrect statements.
-
So the sun is a giant magnifying glass??
No.
I believe the reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror of which the sun is the focal point. The sun's rays are converging down from the firmament.
I thought you followed "Zetetic Cosmology".
Irrelevent.
I supposed you have observed this mirror and if the sun is the focal point please explain how we see the sun not as a "point" but as a disc around 0.5° in diameter.
--- because your eyeball is a sphere.
And, where is the energy source that this "mirror" is focusing?
I am not sure but I am convinced that the frozen horizon goes on and on and on and on. I think it is credible to believe that there are other pockets with spinning sun's and moons. The aggregate is likely shining lots of light upwards to the firmament. That is what we are seeing in the moon ---- a reflection of the earth up upon the firmament. We are probably a tiny speck in 1 of the moon craters.
Also if "reflective surface of the firmament acts as a parabolic mirror" what makes the sun appear to move?
The magnetic field of the earth probably has something to do with it.
-
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Beam Divergence
This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/0/0e/Beam_divergence.jpg)
From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence) we read:
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
If I setup a laser, travel a hundred meters out in front of it, and look back at the source, will I see the source as a tiny source of light, or will I see it enlarged. If I double the distance, will it appear even bigger (enough that it appears the same size as it did at the hundred meter mark)?
Or to clarify, if I go out far enough that the beam is 1 meter wide, if I look back with a spotting scope, will the source of the beam appear to be 1 meter wide also, instead of 1mm (or whatever size it is physically)?
-
A few of questions that have not been explained in the forum or wiki.
1. If the sun is a focal point, how do you explain the existence of solar flares?
2. What shape is the focal point?
3. Because there is no sign of the light source in the sky, the source must come from below the horizon. That would indicate that the focal point must be a mirror. How is it possible for the focal point to move without changing the angle of the mirror?
The only way this would be possible is if the focal point is stationary and it is the earth that moves.
Thank you.
-
An addition was added to the Magnification at Sunset page in the Wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Beam Divergence
This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/0/0e/Beam_divergence.jpg)
From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_divergence) we read:
"The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."
If I setup a laser, travel a hundred meters out in front of it, and look back at the source, will I see the source as a tiny source of light, or will I see it enlarged. If I double the distance, will it appear even bigger (enough that it appears the same size as it did at the hundred meter mark)?
Or to clarify, if I go out far enough that the beam is 1 meter wide, if I look back with a spotting scope, will the source of the beam appear to be 1 meter wide also, instead of 1mm (or whatever size it is physically)?
Firstly, I wouldn't advise looking into a laser beam with a spotting scope as this will likely give you some serious eye troubles.
Secondly, if you were able to, and still see afterwards, you would see a focused point as the scope would focus the laser onto your eyes. As the beam has diverged you could move the scope around the diverged beam and see the same result.
-
Firstly, I wouldn't advise looking into a laser beam with a spotting scope as this will likely give you some serious eye troubles.
Obviously
Secondly, if you were able to, and still see afterwards, you would see a focused point as the scope would focus the laser onto your eyes. As the beam has diverged you could move the scope around the diverged beam and see the same result.
So you're saying the source would appear enlarged, and not just as a result of using a scope? Perhaps placing a 1 meter wide circle of cardboard next to the laser, heading out to where the beam has spread to a diameter of a meter, and then observing if the source of the beam appears as wide as the cardboard. (standing just to the side of the beam of course, for safety's sake..... or using a dark lens. That would also reduce glare)