Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #60 on: September 18, 2019, 10:59:02 AM »
I'd say all star emmission lines are just the result of passing through various gases in the upper atmosphere.

And yet the Hubble telescope, above the atmosphere, has a spectrograph...

https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubble-space-telescope-space-telescope-imaging-spectrograph
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Midnightsun

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #61 on: September 18, 2019, 11:07:34 AM »
Quote
You cannot see emission/absorption lines directly , you use a spectrometer for that

So what?  What does that prove?  You cannot see atoms directly either. The reason in both cases is that the sizes involved are far too small for them to be detectable with the naked eye. In the case of emission/absorption lines we are talking about nanometres (10^-9m) and even smaller of course in the case of atoms. That's why we have developed equipment that is designed to enable us to see things in nature which are beyond the standard and natural capability of the human eye.

It seems to me that you are being deliberately obstructive because you only want to see things from a single point of view. You are dismissing any and all evidence presented to you that suggests a different version of the Earth and the Universe to the one that exists in your mind.  You are creating boundaries that don't actually exist.  For example take the quote below:

Quote
Do you seriously believe light travels all those silly distances without absorption and re-emission .

No I don't believe there is no absorption or re-emission of light over the vast distances of space. In fact I know there is.  Take dark nebulae for example (Horsehead nebula to name but one). Those nebulae are made up of cold (therefore dark) dust and gas which absorbs light from the more distant stars. The average diameter of the dust particles and gas molecules is greater than the wavelength of the light passing through so the light gets partly absorbed and partly scattered depending on wavelength.  You may have heard of the famous Coal sack nebula which can be found in Crux (the Southern Cross). If a dark nebula made mostly of dust is drifting through space and encounters a star, the light from the star is reflected off the dust particles and we get a reflection nebula.  The nebulosity surrounding the Pleiades is a classic example. Reflection nebulae are characterised by their blue hue compared to red (Ha) for hydrogen emission nebulae such as the Orion Nebula. In this case the hydrogen gas has actually given birth so to speak to the stars within them and the energy from the stars ionises the atoms causing them to emit light. Most of the atoms are either hydrogen (red) and oxygen (green/blue).

Interstellar gas and dust (collectively called the Interstellar Medium) does scatter light to greater and lesser extents according to wavelength. There is the effect of interstellar reddening which means blue (short wavelength) light has been scattered more than red light.  The extent of reddening over various distances is measurable and so we can adjust for it in calculations.

Emission nebulae are a fantastic example and very colourful example of light re-emission.  Light can travel over infinite distance so there is nothing 'silly' about the vast distances across space. When I start talking to people about the vast distances involved in space they seem to get 'blown away' about them. Not because they think I'm lying to them (what would I gain from lying?) but just because they are not used to thinking about distances on those scales.  That's what learning is about - telling people about things they didn't previously know about or understand.

In another comment you made at some point...

Quote
This experiment frightens globe defenders .

Not that I'm a globe defender as such but no experiment that you have mentioned so far frightens me..  why should it?  If you describe an experiment I agree with I will say so. If you describe an experiment I don't agree with, likewise I will say so. It is not a question of being frightened by anything
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 10:11:58 PM by Midnightsun »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #62 on: September 19, 2019, 09:37:24 AM »
Then what is your opinion of the outlined experiment ? Why do seek to divert from it's simple premise based on proven geometric survey methods ?

At some point the assumptions of spherical spinning earth has to verified because everything based on those assumptions is rendered useless science fiction otherwise .

So far ,in the 500 years or so since it's introduction with no new evidence , science has provided not one proof of rotation or curvature . 

Why delve of into theory of stupendous stellar distance which is a requirement of globe theory only - and which is impossible to verify ? 

Midnightsun

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #63 on: September 19, 2019, 10:27:07 AM »
If you look back through the discussion I think you will find I did provide an opinion about the outlined experiment.

In reply #49 you listed some options. One of them said "if the earth is a perfect sphere...etc etc" and in reply #50 I said that is the best option based on my own real world observations and experience. So that is my opinion of the outlined experiment.

The rest of your latest reply is just more of your own personal opinions. At least I am providing evidence and specific examples of real world observations which is more than you have up to now.

Quote
Why delve of into theory of stupendous stellar distance which is a requirement of globe theory only - and which is impossible to verify ? 

You are quite keen to dismiss the 'stupendous' distances that are as you say a 'requirement' of globe theory. What evidence can you provide yourself that the stars are actually as near as you say they are?  After all the stars are just pinpoint of light to the human eye. So how can you tell how far away they are? Convince me and I will be happy to believe you.  I have already explained how stellar distances can be measured using brightness curves such as you get with Cepheids. That is based on real data. Hardly impossible to verify!
« Last Edit: September 19, 2019, 04:38:02 PM by Midnightsun »

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2019, 07:36:21 PM »
So far ,in the 500 years or so since it's introduction with no new evidence , science has provided not one proof of rotation or curvature . 
Laser ring gyros? Foucault's Pendulum? Actual pictures from space, taken every single day by satellites? Gravity being weaker at the equator?
Sorry if I'm being a broken record here - I know you've heard all of these before and dismissed them offhand for XYZ meaningless reason.
"NASA is fake blah blah"
"I don't understand how lasers work blah blah"
"Foucault's pendulum has errr motors in or something"

Distract, dismiss, ignore. But some youtube video of a dude with a P900 is concrete evidence, right?
Please provide me the maths that shows that a laser ring gyro doesn't show rotation of the Earth, and show me you're not like the rest of them. I'm sick and tired of flat earthers just dismissing stuff without even the slightest understanding of how it even works.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #65 on: October 31, 2019, 08:52:07 PM »
You can't invoke Foucault's pendulum or gyrocompasses, since they are caused by the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

RLGs also measure the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The Coriolis effect can be caused either by Earth's rotation OR by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is why Michelson claimed that his CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, in order to assert ROTATION as well.

It is now acknowledged (Cambridge University) that the Coriolis effect is responsible for the Sagnac effect on neutrinos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2211156#msg2211156 (includes the correct formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT derived in accordance with Stokes' theorem)

Stationary Earth proofs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136 (Hoek and Mascart experiments)


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #66 on: October 31, 2019, 09:15:39 PM »
That is why Michelson claimed that his CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, in order to assert ROTATION as well.
Ahhh yes, there could be an as-yet-undetected ether rotating at exactly the same frequency as the Sun rotating over the top of the flat Earth, how silly of me! I'll have to retract my previous statement, and instead just rely on pictures of the round Earth of evidence that it is in fact round. /s

p.s. How would the ether effect an Foucault pendulum?

p.p.s. long time no speak
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #67 on: October 31, 2019, 09:25:02 PM »
Ahhh yes, there could be an as-yet-undetected ether rotating

There has to be, since Michelson only detected the Coriolis effect AND NOT the Sagnac effect on the MGX interferometer.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #68 on: November 04, 2019, 01:11:07 AM »
There has to be, since Michelson only detected the Coriolis effect AND NOT the Sagnac effect on the MGX interferometer.

I am, as ever, sorry for my ignorance, Sandokhan. I have no idea what that means or why this means there must be an ether :-)

You truly rise above other flat eathers.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #69 on: November 04, 2019, 06:44:01 AM »
According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area:








Now, apply Stokes' theorem to this interferometer (center of rotation does not coincide anymore with its geometrical center):





We already know the formula which is proportional to the area of the interferometer:

4AωsinΦ/c2

This simplifies to:

4Aω/c2


Ask yourself this very important question now: what is the form/nature of the SAGNAC FORMULA which, according to Stokes' theorem, is proportional to the translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area?

V = radius of earth x angular velocity, of course

Obviously, it must be of the form:

Δt = 2vL/c2


A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WILL ALWAYS RECORD/REGISTER BOTH THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT, if the Earth is rotating around its own axis. This is the huge omission which Michelson, perhaps intentionally, forgot to mention in his 1925 paper (MGX).

So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 09:23:47 AM by sandokhan »

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #70 on: November 04, 2019, 11:20:42 AM »
Have a look at the pendulum experiments carried out when syzygy occurs .

https://file.scirp.org/Html/6-4500258_43416.htm

Gravitational/cosmological model of the universe is wrong .

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #71 on: November 04, 2019, 01:52:59 PM »
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #72 on: November 04, 2019, 02:27:19 PM »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #73 on: November 04, 2019, 02:35:52 PM »
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

Very easy.

4AωsinΦ/c2

Houston latitude: 29.7604°

Fill in the figure for the area of the interferometer.

Then, you can compute the SAGNAC EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Find the radius of the spherical Earth at that latitude, the velocity of rotation (using the same latitude), and fill in the value of the length of the interferometer.

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2019, 07:36:08 PM »
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

Very easy.

4AωsinΦ/c2

Houston latitude: 29.7604°

Fill in the figure for the area of the interferometer.

Then, you can compute the SAGNAC EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Find the radius of the spherical Earth at that latitude, the velocity of rotation (using the same latitude), and fill in the value of the length of the interferometer.

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Ok! For a triangular ring laser gyro of arm length 0.8inches in Houston, I got...
delta-t from Coriolis of 1.3e-20 s
delta-t from Sagnac of 1.6e-14 s

So I guess a ring laser gyro measuring 15 degrees an hour has an error of around 0.0000015 degrees per hour if it wasn't taking into account the Coriolis effect... am I missing something?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2019, 08:29:54 PM »
For a triangular RLG the formulas are slightly different:

Coriolis effect (dt = 4ωAsinΦ/c2, where A the area of the triangle):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1982635#msg1982635

Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2154991#msg2154991

Now, with these formulas (delta t), you then use the delta fringe formula (which also features the wavelength): you have an expected fringe shift, you measure the registered shift from the RLG, and then you compute the angular velocity of rotation.

http://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

https://agenda.infn.it/event/7524/contributions/68390/attachments/49528/58554/Schreiber.pdf

RLGs record only the Coriolis effect fringe shift, and NOT the Sagnac effect fringe shift which is thousands of times greater in magnitude.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2019, 09:01:30 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #76 on: November 06, 2019, 08:46:53 AM »
In order to dispense with further calculations here are the fringe shift/phase difference formulas:

Δφ = Δt x c/λ

Rectangular RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = L x h

Sagnac formula

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/cλ


Square RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = L2

Sagnac formula

4VL((cosΦ1 + cosΦ2)/cλ


Triangular RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = 1/2(L x h)

Sagnac formula

2VL(2cosΦ1 + cosΦ2))/cλ


Dividing the Sagnac formula by the Coriolis equation, we obtain:

O(VL)/O(Aω) = O(R/h), where h usually equals 1 - 4 meters, (V = R x ω)

SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA/CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA = O(R), where R = radius of Earth at the latitude of the laboratory/RLG experiment.

The difference amounts to a factor of O(n x 16), where n ~<= 6.378

Here is how to calculate the radius of the Earth at a certain latitude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165338/http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/comp.infosystems.gis.html (section 5.1b)

« Last Edit: November 06, 2019, 09:45:29 AM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #77 on: November 06, 2019, 06:28:06 PM »
The difference amounts to a factor of O(n x 16), where n ~<= 6.378

Here is how to calculate the radius of the Earth at a certain latitude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165338/http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/comp.infosystems.gis.html (section 5.1b)
Hey! That's what I said, right? So since Coriolos effect on a RLG is negligibe, it has no effect on my initial statement.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #78 on: November 06, 2019, 06:51:34 PM »
The Coriolis effect would be negligible if, and only if, the interferometer also registers the Sagnac effect upon the velocity of the light beams.

Otherwise, you need the Coriolis effect to correctly calculate the fringe shifts, which in turn leads to the computation of the angular velocity.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 214
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #79 on: November 06, 2019, 07:01:34 PM »
The Coriolis effect would be negligible if, and only if, the interferometer also registers the Sagnac effect upon the velocity of the light beams.

Otherwise, you need the Coriolis effect to correctly calculate the fringe shifts, which in turn leads to the computation of the angular velocity.
I thought RLGs register the Sagnac effect as their main method of calculating rotation.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in