[Pete Svarrior]

Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3.

What makes you think the density of the medium should remain the same regardless of scale?

[jimster]

The density and material of observers on the surface and up to the dome is virtually the same when two people a few hundred miles apart look up at the same spot on the dome between them at sunset. Certainly no difference that can account for the fact that one sees light blue sky while the other sees dark sky and stars. If they both look west, one sees light blue, while the other sees dark sky and stars, right through the lighted area, the same place on the dome that the other sees light blue, looking at almost the same angle and almost the same distance.

Also does not explain how the FE location of the sun on the dome at night is seen as stars, even as it produces enough light to illuminate half the earth. Yet the relatively dim stars and dark sky go right through.

I really want to understand this, but can't seem to get an explanation. "We can't explain it, but the earth is flat, so there must be some unknown force with unknown equations", can some FE add details to this? Diagram? Experiments? Equations? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

[Pete Svarrior]

The density and material of observers on the surface and up to the dome is virtually the same when two people a few hundred miles apart look up at the same spot on the dome between them at sunset.

That is not the question I've asked. Would you like to try again?

[jimster]

Are we talking glass dome the size of atmosphere with varying density? Then why care about the answer, the atmosphere is air. Air pressure variations are well known to weathermen, aeronautical engineers, etc. and the effect on optics is well known. Would love to hear how air pressure variations cause the whole dome to look dark for one person while light blue to another.

I'll make you a deal, I will answer any questions about density variation or whatever if you answer my questions:

How do persons on either side of sunset look at the dome between them and one sees dark with stars while the other sees light blue?

How can someone can look at the dome through the daylight part and see dark and stars on the side of the dome?

The glass globe video does not explain, it illustrates my problem. Someone looking up from the bottom of that glass globe is going to see part of it light and part dark. It does not match my experience of day and night sky.

[Pete Svarrior]

Are we talking glass dome the size of atmosphere with varying density?

No.

I'll make you a deal

You are in no position to make any "deals". The forum has rules, and those won't change on your whim.

[Kangaroony]

The density of the air over the planet varies with altitude according to RE physics.
Climbers that reach high mountain altitudes need auxiliary oxygen to sustain exertion.
Prop-driven planes can't fly at extreme altitudes.

But... the density of the glass half-sphere over the RE map is constant, and simply acts
as any prism does.  Additionally, the light source used is far too small, too focussed, and
is far too close to the surface of the earth in order to represent the sun.

This experiment needs to be better performed with, say, an open 100W incandescent light
bulb at a distance of, say, a couple of metres directly above the glass prism.  The resultant
light pattern on the map will be vastly different. 

To use a penlight torch is simply unrepresentative of the relative sizes of the earth and the
sun and the distance between them.

[SteelyBob]

If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere

All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

[Pete Svarrior]

The density of the air over the planet varies with altitude according to RE physics.
Climbers that reach high mountain altitudes need auxiliary oxygen to sustain exertion.
Prop-driven planes can't fly at extreme altitudes.

I'm very
happy for you,
but that has
absolutely nothing
to do with scomato's
objection, or why
it's nonsense.

[jimster]

Why even discuss? That a 2 inch half sphere of glass over a flat earth map with a flashlight shining on it can produce a light pattern on said FE map proves nothing. The atmosphere of the earth is air, and this is glass. Very different optical and physical properties.

[drand48]

Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3.

What makes you think the density of the medium should remain the same regardless of scale?

Refraction is based on density.  If the density of the atmosphere is less, the refraction angle will be less.  So, for the demo to match reality, the density of the medium has to match.

[Tom Bishop]

If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere

All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.

[scomato]

If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere

All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.

You are dodging the question of how a glass dome proves any point about our atmosphere and our sun. Glass is approx 2500x denser than air, the change in density from one material to another is literally what causes light refraction in the first place. I could not build a desktop model of a building out of paper and popsicle sticks and claim that those materials are suitable for real world construction, that would be insane. Using solid glass as an analogue to our atmosphere is just absurd, try the experiment again with a dome full of air and see where that gets you, at least that would be started on the right track.

Not to mention the use of a flashlight as a light source, which is not analogous to our Sun. According to the wiki, "The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth." If you shone a lightbulb at the glass dome instead of a spotlight you'd get a completely different result.

So the example using a glass dome and a flash light to describe the world is doubly absurd.

[stack]

This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.

Looking at this from the wiki:



Couldn't you do a real world experiment (instead of using a desktop hemisphere magnifying glass) and test the upward bending of light in EA? Just spit balling: Like putting a barrier, like a shield of some sort, perpendicular to the sun. Raise it up so there is a gap between the ground and the shield. Kinda like raising up a garage door halfway. If the sun rays are curving up as dictated by EA, then the light should extend further under and past the gap than if the rays were in a straight line. In other words, the EA light rays should curve under the halfway-up garage door and extend deeper into the garage than a straight light ray would.

You could probably do the same thing with shadows - Perhaps a tall building casting a shadow a ways away. If the shadow is longer than a straight line from the sun, I guess the EA light rays are bending upward.

Has anyone done any real world EA experiments? Not the ones in the wiki that require lasers or synthetic magnetic devices and a Stanford lab. I mean real world experiments, with the Sun.

[drand48]

If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere

So, what you're saying is that this is not a demonstration, it's merely an analogy.  It doesn't prove anything, it just illustrates an effect similar to what EA would provide.  Correct?

All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.