The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Sentient Pizza on January 12, 2015, 08:03:20 PM
-
You Flat earth window lickers are my favorite brand of window licker. The old forum is certainly not the same without the hard core flatists. Now that my ad hominem is out of the way I'll get on to my question.
My question: What is the mechanism or explanation for how sunlight reaches the ground in the shape required to reflect what is observed?
This is not a question about sun rises or eclipses or any of that other stuff. This is about the actual shape of light reaching the ground. Meaning if you were to look at the disk from above (and were able to see the surface out to the ice wall/ring/whatever ) you would see an illuminated area the would roughly look like a "D". what is the mechanism to create that illuminated patch?
Honestly I think I know the FE answers to my questions but there seems to be a legitimate effort to do a re-model on the FE holy texts that I figured I give you a chance to address some questions in the level of detail that you aspire to. I'll make a new thread for each specific question once the previous one has run it's course. Also if this is in the wrong place please move it, thanks!
-
If you need to get back to the old site, don't let us keep you.
Tom answered your question only yesterday.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56597#msg56597
Be my guest and reply to him.
On this site we have a super fast forum and a search (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=search) function that works really well. Feel free to enjoy both.
-
If you need to get back to the old site, don't let us keep you.
Tom answered your question only yesterday.
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.msg56597#msg56597
Be my guest and reply to him.
On this site we have a super fast forum and a search (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=search) function that works really well. Feel free to enjoy both.
Yeah I read his response and read through that thread. He did not answer the question. Would you care too?
-
What makes you think it looks like a "D"?
-
What makes you think it looks like a "D"?
Consider reality.
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth. The edges of the spotlight would have to be rim (the curve of the 'D') and a straight line from edge through the NP to the edge on the opposite side (the straight line of the 'D').
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
Why would you require proof, especially from a single scientist's study? Did you hold Rowbotham to the same level of evidence?
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
Why would you require proof, especially from a single scientist's study? Did you hold Rowbotham to the same level of evidence?
I expected that RE'ers had some level of evidence behind their facts. Published studies, that sort of thing.
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
Why would you require proof, especially from a single scientist's study? Did you hold Rowbotham to the same level of evidence?
I expected that RE'ers had some level of evidence behind their facts. Published studies, that sort of thing.
I assume Google searches work for you.
From Wikipedia article on Equinox:
References
1 United States Naval Observatory (2010-06-10). "Earth's Seasons: Equinoxes, Solstices, Perihelion, and Aphelion, 2000-2020".
2 Owens, Steve (20 March 2010). "Equinox, Equilux, and Twilight Times". Dark Sky Diary (blog). Retrieved 31 December 2010.
3 Montenbruck, Oliver; Pfleger, Thomas. Astronomy on the Personal Computer. Springer-Verlag. p. 17. ISBN 0-387-57700-9.
4 Meeus; Mathematical Astronomical Morsels; ISBN 0-943396-51-4
5 PIA11667: The Rite of Spring". Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
Why would you require proof, especially from a single scientist's study? Did you hold Rowbotham to the same level of evidence?
I expected that RE'ers had some level of evidence behind their facts. Published studies, that sort of thing.
I assume Google searches work for you.
From Wikipedia article on Equinox:
References
1 United States Naval Observatory (2010-06-10). "Earth's Seasons: Equinoxes, Solstices, Perihelion, and Aphelion, 2000-2020".
2 Owens, Steve (20 March 2010). "Equinox, Equilux, and Twilight Times". Dark Sky Diary (blog). Retrieved 31 December 2010.
3 Montenbruck, Oliver; Pfleger, Thomas. Astronomy on the Personal Computer. Springer-Verlag. p. 17. ISBN 0-387-57700-9.
4 Meeus; Mathematical Astronomical Morsels; ISBN 0-943396-51-4
5 PIA11667: The Rite of Spring". Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
Those are citations for a Wikipedia article, which reference books and sources about earth science, not studies from scientists who studied all points on the earth's surface during the equinox. Why don't you try being honest for once?
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
Why would you require proof, especially from a single scientist's study? Did you hold Rowbotham to the same level of evidence?
I expected that RE'ers had some level of evidence behind their facts. Published studies, that sort of thing.
I assume Google searches work for you.
From Wikipedia article on Equinox:
References
1 United States Naval Observatory (2010-06-10). "Earth's Seasons: Equinoxes, Solstices, Perihelion, and Aphelion, 2000-2020".
2 Owens, Steve (20 March 2010). "Equinox, Equilux, and Twilight Times". Dark Sky Diary (blog). Retrieved 31 December 2010.
3 Montenbruck, Oliver; Pfleger, Thomas. Astronomy on the Personal Computer. Springer-Verlag. p. 17. ISBN 0-387-57700-9.
4 Meeus; Mathematical Astronomical Morsels; ISBN 0-943396-51-4
5 PIA11667: The Rite of Spring". Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
Once again Gulliver proves, for all his elocution, that his scientific credentials only extend to the ability to Google and Wikipedia whatever mainstream result he wishes to support. Well done, Google Scholar.
-
I expected that RE'ers had some level of evidence behind their facts. Published studies, that sort of thing.
I assume Google searches work for you.
From Wikipedia article on Equinox:
References
1 United States Naval Observatory (2010-06-10). "Earth's Seasons: Equinoxes, Solstices, Perihelion, and Aphelion, 2000-2020".
2 Owens, Steve (20 March 2010). "Equinox, Equilux, and Twilight Times". Dark Sky Diary (blog). Retrieved 31 December 2010.
3 Montenbruck, Oliver; Pfleger, Thomas. Astronomy on the Personal Computer. Springer-Verlag. p. 17. ISBN 0-387-57700-9.
4 Meeus; Mathematical Astronomical Morsels; ISBN 0-943396-51-4
5 PIA11667: The Rite of Spring". Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
Those are citations for a Wikipedia article, which reference books and sources about earth science, not studies from scientists who studied all points on the earth's surface during the equinox. Why don't you try being honest for once?
Do tell me where I was not honest. I challenge you.
I also challenge you to provide evidence to prove your position to the same insane level.
Once again Gulliver proves, for all his elocution, that his scientific credentials only extend to the ability to Google and Wikipedia whatever mainstream result he wishes to support. Well done, Google Scholar.
First, your reasoning is impaired. An example is not proof. Indeed anecdotal evidence is not worth much in proving a point ever.
Second, is there some reason you believe that I've claimed any scientific credentials? Are you claiming that only those with such credentials can debate topics?
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
??? Why would anyone need to study every point on the surface of the earth? Isn't a representative sample sufficient?
-
Second, is there some reason you believe that I've claimed any scientific credentials?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15565.msg291595#msg291595
My Ph.D. is in OR. I taught undergraduate physics, graduate law, graduate business, graduate math, graduation computer science. My publications are in OR, Comp Sci., OM, AI, and physics. I've worked as a contractor for the DOD, FBI, GAO, and NASA.
-
Second, is there some reason you believe that I've claimed any scientific credentials?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=15565.msg291595#msg291595
My Ph.D. is in OR. I taught undergraduate physics, graduate law, graduate business, graduate math, graduation computer science. My publications are in OR, Comp Sci., OM, AI, and physics. I've worked as a contractor for the DOD, FBI, GAO, and NASA.
So you had only to go to another forum, back over 7 years, omit a relevant part of the quote, and answer a question posed to someone probably only on this board. Amazingly awful.
Now back to the topic please: show us your proof to the level you demanded of REers.
-
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.
Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
??? Why would anyone need to study every point on the surface of the earth? Isn't a representative sample sufficient?
Obviously Tom holds wildly unequal standards. Otherwise how could he possibly cite ENaG?
-
The distribution of light on a sphere (from a single source) is not difficult to test. Any one can get a ball or globe, put it in a dark room, turn on a light source, and observe what areas are illuminated.
What you will find is an even distribution of illuminated area on all surfaces on the side of the sphere that is toward the light.
Conversely one could switch the sphere for a large plate or disk and see the entire disk lit up.
The point to my thread is in seeking a fleshed out explanation for why the shape of the illuminated area on a disk is more or less D shaped.
My assertion is that the D shape is a best case scenario when the sun's path is more or less directly over the equator. Things get much trickier for FET when the case of northern or southern summer.
In the case of southern Summer the light has to get to the other side of the disk (without illuminating the night time side) in order to keep all of Antarctica/ice ring illuminated. On a flat earth this would look like back to back D's where the center of one D was dark and the rest were lit up.
Northern summer is much easier to explain but is still a version of a D shape with a lowercase d bulge on the back to illuminate the center pole constantly.
I am guessing the total coverage of light is significantly larger in the case of Southern summer. Probably by a factor of 2 but I am eagerly awaiting to hear how the basic shape is determined before we get too much further.
-
The distribution of light on a sphere (from a single source) is not difficult to test. Any one can get a ball or globe, put it in a dark room, turn on a light source, and observe what areas are illuminated.
What you will find is an even distribution of illuminated area on all surfaces on the side of the sphere that is toward the light.
Conversely one could switch the sphere for a large plate or disk and see the entire disk lit up.
The point to my thread is in seeking a fleshed out explanation for why the shape of the illuminated area on a disk is more or less D shaped.
My assertion is that the D shape is a best case scenario when the sun's path is more or less directly over the equator. Things get much trickier for FET when the case of northern or southern summer.
In the case of southern Summer the light has to get to the other side of the disk (without illuminating the night time side) in order to keep all of Antarctica/ice ring illuminated. On a flat earth this would look like back to back D's where the center of one D was dark and the rest were lit up.
Northern summer is much easier to explain but is still a version of a D shape with a lowercase d bulge on the back to illuminate the center pole constantly.
I am guessing the total coverage of light is significantly larger in the case of Southern summer. Probably by a factor of 2 but I am eagerly awaiting to hear how the basic shape is determined before we get too much further.
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.
-
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.
Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.
-
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.
Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.
You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes. You have no evidence that this is so. In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight. Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.
-
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.
Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.
You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes. You have no evidence that this is so. In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight. Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.
False. We regularly post live cam links to document sunrise an sunset times including time-lapsed records for a year. I can only understand your refusal to accept reality as willful ignorance. You need only look at the sky on an equinox to disprove Tom's cartoons.
-
You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes. You have no evidence that this is so. In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight. Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.
Right...... so then please supply the model so I can verify for myself. That is the standard of evidence set by FE proponents right?
Maybe you could point me to some websites that show the predictions of sunrise on a FE? or Some Wiki pages that display the math for the kind of diffusion of light as you claim so I can do the math myself? Or at least let me know what the date is for the drawing in question so I can calculate and compare to other functional predictions.
If you could do that Tintagel I would gladly accept your continuing participation in this thread. Otherwise please see yourself to the exit as you are only de-railing and distracting. My question is in the search for evidence and you are not contributing.
I am eagerly awaiting an explanation of this light on a flat plane phenomena.
-
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.
Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.
You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes. You have no evidence that this is so. In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight. Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.
False. We regularly post live cam links to document sunrise an sunset times including time-lapsed records for a year. I can only understand your refusal to accept reality as willful ignorance. You need only look at the sky on an equinox to disprove Tom's cartoons.
Please link us to the research you claim to have made here, since you can't seem to find any official research on the matter.
-
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.
Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.
You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes. You have no evidence that this is so. In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight. Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.
False. We regularly post live cam links to document sunrise an sunset times including time-lapsed records for a year. I can only understand your refusal to accept reality as willful ignorance. You need only look at the sky on an equinox to disprove Tom's cartoons.
Please link us to the research you claim to have made here, since you can't seem to find any official research on the matter.
The Forum's search function worked well for you before. See, for example: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27674#msg27674 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27674#msg27674)
Also, I can find all sorts of research on the matter with Google. Did you need help with Google again? See, for example: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-equinox-see-it-for-yourself-this-weekend-46925476/?no-ist (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-equinox-see-it-for-yourself-this-weekend-46925476/?no-ist)
-
Please link us to the research you claim to have made here, since you can't seem to find any official research on the matter.
Tom, did you know that every year FES has a chance to conduct their own research on this very matter. I think that it's safe to say that there are enough members living in enough different locations to determine which model is better supported. If only there was enough interest in actually settling this matter once and for all.
-
Also, I can find all sorts of research on the matter with Google. Did you need help with Google again? See, for example: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-equinox-see-it-for-yourself-this-weekend-46925476/?no-ist (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-equinox-see-it-for-yourself-this-weekend-46925476/?no-ist)
The Google Scholar strikes again. I can find google results to support anything I wish to believe as well. Did you know that aliens built the pyramids?
The Forum's search function worked well for you before. See, for example: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27674#msg27674
The observations recorded in that thread don't take place on the equinox. You were, I recall, rather unforgiving of my full moon / sunrise reference because it was actually 24 hours past the full moon. If approximations don't work for our observations, they don't work for yours either. You can't have it both ways.
If you could do that Tintagel I would gladly accept your continuing participation in this thread. Otherwise please see yourself to the exit as you are only de-railing and distracting. My question is in the search for evidence and you are not contributing.
On the contrary, I will post in any thread I wish, and I don't need to fulfill your content requirements to do so. This forum has its own moderators to police post content, and they do a fine job. If you have further questions, please direct them to my ass before you kiss it.
-
On the contrary, I will post in any thread I wish, and I don't need to fulfill your content requirements to do so. This forum has its own moderators to police post content, and they do a fine job. If you have further questions, please direct them to my ass before you kiss it.
Well, I'm not sure why you have such a hostile tone. My post was about keeping this thread on track not so much about limiting one person from posting. I apologize if I did not word that well.
Please try to contribute to the content of the thread.
I think the adversarial aspect of this community is part of why it struggles to be taken seriously and why very few (if any) issues ever get resolved. My hope is to assist in civility, after all we are all here to discover the true nature of the world around us.
Are there any FE proponents that care to address the issue at hand? What is the model that describes what the illuminated areas will be for any given point on any given day? Tom Care to share the source of your illustrations?
-
I figured a thread like this would be a perfect vessel to elaborate on FET for the purposes of updating ENAG that this community aspires to.
Does anyone have *on topic* content to add to this thread?