The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: retlaw on February 19, 2018, 06:36:57 PM
-
I had a thought that might prove that the sun is smaller and closer then science tells us.
Much smaller and much closer.
If what they claim is true about the sun and its location then why isn't it as hot when the sun comes up and sets then at high noon?
149.6 million km from earth to sun (science claim)
6,371 km is the size of earth (science claim)
6,371 km is 0.000004258689839572193% of 149.6 million km
The suns rays has to travel 0.000004258689839572193% farther from the closest side of earth to the farthest.
Cut that number in have because the sun can only illuminate half the earth at one time. (using their science)
0.00000212034%
So does the difference of 0.00000212034% contribute to the extreme summer and winter temperature differences we get living closer to the northern pole or south for that matter?
And why are mornings and evenings sun set and raise not the same temperature as high noon?
To me if the sun and earth are what science claims they are then in winter or summer or morning to evening as soon as the sun is seen the temperature should be the same for all parts of the day while still taking in account thermal mass energy storage to build though out the day.
The season and daily temperature differences prove to me that the sun is much smaller and mush closer then science tells us.
Emphasis on the word "much."
Does this make sense?
-
I had a thought that might prove that the sun is smaller and closer then science tells us.
Much smaller and much closer.
If what they claim is true about the sun and its location then why isn't it as hot when the sun comes up and sets then at high noon?
149.6 million km from earth to sun (science claim)
6,371 km is the size of earth (science claim)
6,371 km is 0.000004258689839572193% of 149.6 million km
The suns rays has to travel 0.000004258689839572193% farther from the closest side of earth to the farthest.
Cut that number in have because the sun can only illuminate half the earth at one time. (using their science)
0.00000212034%
So does the difference of 0.00000212034% contribute to the extreme summer and winter temperature differences we get living closer to the northern pole or south for that matter?
And why are mornings and evenings sun set and raise not the same temperature as high noon?
To me if the sun and earth are what science claims they are then in winter or summer or morning to evening as soon as the sun is seen the temperature should be the same for all parts of the day while still taking in account thermal mass energy storage to build though out the day.
The season and daily temperature differences prove to me that the sun is much smaller and mush closer then science tells us.
Emphasis on the word "much."
Does this make sense?
I can't say I follow you completely, but the atmosphere plays a huge role in the temps throughout the day. Did you factor in the amount of light lost due to the tilt of the Earth. That is cause of the seasons.
-
My point is the atmosphere shouldn't have any changing effect on the sun rays with a 0.000004258689839572193% difference. Its way to minuscule.
But if the sun was super close to us then atmosphere conditions would have a great effect which would account for the different temperature through the day and seasons.
Your comments about the atmosphere having an effect on the variations is exactly what I am trying to point out.
Because we notice the differences as you mentioned proves that science sun earth relationship is flawed.
-
My point is the atmosphere shouldn't have any changing effect on the sun rays with a 0.000004258689839572193% difference. Its way to minuscule.
But if the sun was super close to us then atmosphere conditions would have a great effect which would account for the different temperature through the day and seasons.
Your comments about the atmosphere having an effect on the variations is exactly what I am trying to point out.
Because we notice the differences as you mentioned proves that science sun earth relationship is flawed.
I think I understand what you're getting at. The distances we are talking about are irrelevant. During winter in the northern hemisphere, the Earth is actually closer to the Sun than in summer. The difference is that the tilt of the Earth is pointing the northern hemisphere away from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation we absorb is far more important than the distance to the Sun. If you didn't know this, go smack your "science" teacher for failing you.
As far as day to day goes, there is a whole lot more to temps than the Sun. There are times when it gets warmer overnight. You're trying to reduce a very complex system down to one relatively unimportant measurement.
If the Sun were super close, we would be fried by temps and radiation.
-
"If the Sun were super close, we would be fried by temps and radiation."
Yes we would if the sun was what they said it was.
But what if it was not what they said it was? What if it was much smaller but closer.
Wouldn't a sun very close to us and much smaller give us greater temperature variations between raise and set from noon and winter to summer?
Its winter time outside right now and as I speak the sun is shining bright but where is the heat? It only makes sense that there is not much heat because the sun is closer then father and smaller then bigger.
If it was father and bigger the difference from set and raise to noon temperatures would be minuscule because the numbers say so.
But if it was closer and smaller the differences in temperatures would be much greater because the differences in percentages wouldn't be .00000 but in full percentage points.
That would fit in line with temperature swings.
-
The sun is pretty hot. We live in the habitable zone. Any closer, we would die. Any further away, we would die. The sun is so hot that that fraction of a distance does not matter. Might not be to do with distance but the curvature of the Earth and the composition of the atmosphere above it. And the weather depends on a lot of variables. Greenhouse gas, altitude, air pressure, humidity to name a few. Distance is a factor but not of that much influence.
-
"If the Sun were super close, we would be fried by temps and radiation."
Yes we would if the sun was what they said it was.
But what if it was not what they said it was? What if it was much smaller but closer.
Wouldn't a sun very close to us and much smaller give us greater temperature variations between raise and set from noon and winter to summer?
Its winter time outside right now and as I speak the sun is shining bright but where is the heat? It only makes sense that there is not much heat because the sun is closer then father and smaller then bigger.
If it was father and bigger the difference from set and raise to noon temperatures would be minuscule because the numbers say so.
But if it was closer and smaller the differences in temperatures would be much greater because the differences in percentages wouldn't be .00000 but in full percentage points.
That would fit in line with temperature swings.
The position of the Earth on its axis, curvature and other variables. NASA is sending a probe closer to the sun than ever before and it will take a very long time to get there. The distance 93 million miles. Might take a while. Your statement is understandable don't get me wrong but you aren't thinking of all the other factors.
-
The sun is pretty hot. We live in the habitable zone. Any closer, we would die. Any further away, we would die. The sun is so hot that that fraction of a distance does not matter. Might not be to do with distance but the curvature of the Earth and the composition of the atmosphere above it. And the weather depends on a lot of variables. Greenhouse gas, altitude, air pressure, humidity to name a few. Distance is a factor but not of that much influence.
You are right on every point if the world is a ball.
But if it is flat you are wrong on every point.
-
The sun is pretty hot. We live in the habitable zone. Any closer, we would die. Any further away, we would die. The sun is so hot that that fraction of a distance does not matter. Might not be to do with distance but the curvature of the Earth and the composition of the atmosphere above it. And the weather depends on a lot of variables. Greenhouse gas, altitude, air pressure, humidity to name a few. Distance is a factor but not of that much influence.
You are right on every point if the world is a ball.
But if it is flat you are wrong on every point.
Thanks man. I wake up everyday for people like you! If the earth was flat then the distance between the close and far side wouldn't exist. And the earth isn't flat so I'm right on every point. And the atmosphere, humidity, altitude would still exist on a flat earth? I love this website ;D. What would influence climate if it was flat then?????
-
A sun and moon under the dome.
You are not a flat earth believer.
You don't have to be.
-
But if it was closer and smaller the differences in temperatures would be much greater because the differences in percentages wouldn't be .00000 but in full percentage points.
That would fit in line with temperature swings.
If you want to find out how close the sun is then you can take measurements from a few locations a known distance apart and triangulate.
If the sun is as close as you suppose then you should get measurable differences in angle.
-
Well, since humankind as a whole has seen solar eclipses for hundreds of years, and since the 1700s or so, we've been predicting successfully, and observing, transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the Sun, you would have to accept that it's farther away than all three of these celestial objects, wouldn't you?
-
If the sun is as close as you suppose then you should get measurable differences in angle.
Yes you should and they do
-
If the sun is as close as you suppose then you should get measurable differences in angle.
Yes you should and they do
Oh, have you done them? Because the proposal has always been that you will see an appreciable difference in how high the sun must be, depending on the location(s) you are using. If you have the measurements that would be lovely, as most of the FE community who has engaged on this subject doesn't seem willing to take sites such as timeanddate.com as reliable for this information.
-
If the sun is as close as you suppose then you should get measurable differences in angle.
Yes you should and they do
Oh, have you done them? Because the proposal has always been that you will see an appreciable difference in how high the sun must be, depending on the location(s) you are using. If you have the measurements that would be lovely, as most of the FE community who has engaged on this subject doesn't seem willing to take sites such as timeanddate.com as reliable for this information.
I have seen it done. Photographs at the right time of day can show you how the rays bend.
I'll keep and eye out it.
-
If the sun is as close as you suppose then you should get measurable differences in angle.
Yes you should and they do
Oh, have you done them? Because the proposal has always been that you will see an appreciable difference in how high the sun must be, depending on the location(s) you are using. If you have the measurements that would be lovely, as most of the FE community who has engaged on this subject doesn't seem willing to take sites such as timeanddate.com as reliable for this information.
I have seen it done. Photographs at the right time of day can show you how the rays bend.
I'll keep and eye out it.
If you're referring to images such as these:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/o2bfa.jpg)
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/95/7595-004-A32AFFAB.jpg)
That's not what is being referred to here. We're talking about the fact that, if the sun is only a few thousand miles away, you should be able to take a measurement of the angle of the sun from two locations a known distance apart. Then use those angles and the distance to find the height of the sun. For the FE assertion to be true, all locations must point to at least roughly the same sun height. What I would expect you to see, is a marked difference depending upon what locations you use. Anywhere from a height estimate of 2000 miles to 5000 miles or so. Which is frankly impossible, unless either A) Light bends or B) The Earth isn't flat.
-
If the sun is as close as you suppose then you should get measurable differences in angle.
Yes you should and they do
Cool. If you could just provide the evidence that would be super.
-
Wow that first photo is beautiful.
From that perspective the sun looks to be very close indeed.
The rays are pointing in every direction. north east south west.
All one would need to do is find out how high those clouds are then the rest would be easy calculations.
-
Wow that first photo is beautiful.
From that perspective the sun looks to be very close indeed.
The rays are pointing in every direction. north east south west.
All one would need to do is find out how high those clouds are then the rest would be easy calculations.
Always find it interesting how perspective is used on here incorrectly to explain things it doesn't explain and then ignored when there are things it does explain.
Someone above described how to take observations and calculate the sun's distance. You indicated this has been done. Can you provide the evidence? Thanks.
-
Always find it interesting how perspective is used on here incorrectly to explain things it doesn't explain and then ignored when there are things it does explain.
Please inform me on how to us perspective correctly.
-
That's not what is being referred to here. We're talking about the fact that, if the sun is only a few thousand miles away, you should be able to take a measurement of the angle of the sun from two locations a known distance apart. Then use those angles and the distance to find the height of the sun. For the FE assertion to be true, all locations must point to at least roughly the same sun height. What I would expect you to see, is a marked difference depending upon what locations you use. Anywhere from a height estimate of 2000 miles to 5000 miles or so. Which is frankly impossible, unless either A) Light bends or B) The Earth isn't flat.
I agree with that experiment.
But light bends.
Light bends itself round corners
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/nov/30/light-bends-itself-round-corners
Bending light stronger than ever before by accelerating electrons
https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/bending-light-stronger-than-ever-before-by-accelerating-electrons/
-
Plasma at eclipse
(http://)
Sorry for how small the imagine is. How can I post a bigger one?
-
Plasma at eclipse
(http://)
Sorry for how small the imagine is. How can I post a bigger one?
Images are automatically downsized to reduce clutter. If anyone wants to view the fullsize image, all they need do is click on the image itself in your post.
-
Please inform me on how to us perspective correctly.
Well first, understand what perspective is.
It is:
"The art of representing three-dimensional objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other."
Basically, when things get further away they look smaller.
(https://image.ibb.co/eP4TgH/Tracks_Photo.jpg)
Clearly in real life these tracks are parallel but the further ones away look like they are closer than the nearer ones. And the vanishing point is
"the point at which receding parallel lines viewed in perspective appear to converge"
Note the emphasis. Appear to. They don't really converge.
And if object A goes behind object B from your perspective then you can no longer see object B (assuming A is opaque).
What this means is if I have a clear line of sight to an object then I will be able to see it IF
a) My eyesight is good enough
b) Atmospheric conditions allow.
So Perspective cannot:
Explain sunset, if the sun is above a flat plane then I will be able to see it at all times unless something is in between me and the sun which, if I'm looking out to sea, there isn't. The sun would just get smaller and bigger.
Even if you accept that the sun is a spotlight (which creates a load of other problems), the sun would not slowly sink below the horizon.
Explain long shadows at sunset or shadows cast upwards, clouds being lit from below. Shadows are cast because a light source hits an object, the angle and length of the shadow depends on the physical relationship between the object and light source. Long shadows at sunset prove that the light source (the sun) is physically on the horizon and sinking behind it. Or it is appearing to be which means the light is bending. And yes, light can bend but you'd have to show what atmospheric affect is causing a sun 3000 miles above the earth to appear as if it on the horizon.
Ships disappearing hull first as it sails away from us at sea. The ship will get smaller but it won't slowly sink hull first behind the sea unless it is going over a curve.
On a flat plane I can see things so long as there is a clear line of sight between me and the object:
(https://image.ibb.co/g2saWm/4.jpg)
But on a curve I can't. Here I can only see the person's head, as the person goes further behind the hill he will disappear starting at the bottom:
(https://image.ibb.co/jPDrnR/5.jpg)
And THAT is why the sun sets and boats disappear hull first, if we lived on a flat earth that would not happen.
But Perspective can:
Explain crepuscular rays.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263653/flat-earthers-claim-crepuscular-rays-implies-the-sun-is-close
Claiming that crepuscular rays show a close sun is as silly as claiming that the photo above of the rail tracks show that the tracks originate from a point not that far away.
-
(http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/04/1-16-1068x601.jpg)
Perspective: How far away is the train station? Parallel lines look like they are converging, but they aren't. The crepuscular rays are the same.
http://www.itacanet.org/the-sun-as-a-source-of-energy/part-2-solar-energy-reaching-the-earths-surface/#2.2.-The
Temperature: Just the cosine relationship gives you more radiative heating at noon than at sunrise or sunset. In addition, you have the heat capacity of the Earth and atmosphere to consider. When you put a pot on the stove it doesn't boil instantly