[IronHorse]

Reading Toms post under FE Projects about updating the entry for the Sun under the FAQ page it reminded me of a question I wanted to ask in relation to the Sun. I didn't feel it was right to post this question as a reply to that so created this separately.

On the FAQ page of the Wiki, we see an animated GIF showing the Sun and Moon revolving around the NP.  From the impression given by the animation it seems that sunlight only shines down on the Earth (to create day time). 

If the Sun is casting light only downwards on the Earth but only to a specific region, then what is illuminating the Moon?  If you compare the size of area of the Earth surface covered by sunlight with the distance between the Sun and the Moon then it is clear that the Moon lies beyond the range of sunlight.

If sunlight is not being cast downwards only (illuminating the Moon as well as it is) then it will illuminate the whole of the Earths surface according to the diagram as there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.  Hence there could be no night time.

[iamcpc]

If the Sun is casting light only downwards on the Earth but only to a specific region, then what is illuminating the Moon? 

I've read three different answers to this question. The answers, in order of most widely accepted, are:

1. The sun is illuminating the moon.
2. The moon is generating its own light
3. An unknown or undetermined light source is lighting the moon.

[Pete Svarrior]

If sunlight is not being cast downwards only (illuminating the Moon as well as it is) then it will illuminate the whole of the Earths surface according to the diagram as there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.  Hence there could be no night time.

Don't forget EA. The spotlight effect is not caused by the direction in which the light leaves the Sun, but rather the angles at which it reaches the Earth.

[IronHorse]

So EA gives this magical bending ability to light from the Sun such that it can curve around just enough to illuminate the Moon and yet starlight seems to be quite unaffected by it.

If light from the stars was affected by EA as well then I can only imagine what the night sky would look like.

[Pete Svarrior]

So EA gives this magical bending ability to light from the Sun

You are in the upper fora. If you cannot discuss things like an adult, do not post here.

yet starlight seems to be quite unaffected by it.

What makes you think so? It certainly is affected. It would help if you didn't substitute the gaps in your FE knowledge with stuff you've made up.

[IronHorse]

So what property of EA causes light to bend as FE claims then?  It certainly seems quite magical to me.   It is certainly not conventional as per the normal laws of refraction that I know. Hence my use of the word magical. My use of the term was more metaphorical rather than literal.

Starlight is certainly affected by atmospheric refraction. No question about that. But that amounts to minutes of arc at best rather than the extensive bending that EA seems to manage according to the Wiki.  I can find plenty of detailed descriptions about how refraction causes a deflection of the direction of a light ray along with equations which tell me by how much in mediums of different density.  But I cannot find any similarly detailed information about how EA bends light in the way that FE asserts it does. A Google search does present links to information that talks about acceleration of charged particles in an electromagnetic field but there is a big difference between a photon which isn't a particle and hence cannot be charged and a charged particle such as a proton or electron.  None of the information I have found provides an explicit description of how EA causes us to see the phases of the Moon or the Sun to rise or set? 

So is it case of you've just made that up because it sounds good or have you any actual evidence to back up the claimed connection between EA and the Sun and Moon?

And as far as gaps in my knowledge of FE is concerned I hardly consider myself alone in that.  Well sorry Pete but like anyone else in the world I don't claim to know everything and that is the purpose of asking questions and indeed these forums isn't it.  Whether those questions ever get answered or not seems to depend on who reads them.

[Pete Svarrior]

So what property of EA causes light to bend as FE claims then?  It certainly seems quite magical to me.   It is certainly not conventional as per the normal laws of refraction that I know. Hence my use of the word magical. My use of the term was more metaphorical rather than literal.

Please remember that you're expected to familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. If you can't do that, do not post here.

And as far as gaps in my knowledge of FE is concerned I hardly consider myself alone in that.

Certainly. Nonetheless, I'm not concerned with how common your ignorance is. I'm expecting you to follow the rules of engagement of the place you chose to, well, engage with.

that is the purpose of asking questions and indeed these forums isn't it.

I do not know what the purpose of asking entry-level questions in a board that specifically prohibits them is. I'm also not sure why I should care.

So is it case of you've just made that up because it sounds good or have you any actual evidence to back up the claimed connection between EA and the Sun and Moon?

You're asking whether I have any evidence that a property of light is linked to certain light sources. I'll let that sink in.

[IronHorse]

Please remember that you're expected to familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. If you can't do that, do not post here.

What is the purpose of forums Pete?  The idea is that people who don't know things - even the 'basics' - can ask others with more experience and knowledge and get the answers.  Basic is also a relative term based on an individuals prior knowledge. Things that are basic in astronomy to me I realise are not to others.  We learn by sharing knowledge don't we?

If anyone wants to gain knowledge about FE theory then their research is unavoidably limited to FE websites and forums. I could ask on a mainstream physics forum instead but I am likely to be told where to go in no uncertain terms.

There doesn't seem to be any basic information about EA to help me 'familiarise' myself with those basics.  hence I ask the question.  For someone who has obviously got a very good knowledge of all the 'basics' you seem remarkably unwilling to share your knowledge with those less experienced.  You don't hold back though at all with your condescending and patronising comments. If you are not willing to answer questions yourself then at least point us to where that information is so we can follow your invitation to educate ourselves.

If the information was there in the first place people wouldn't need to ask the questions.

[Pete Svarrior]

What is the purpose of forums Pete?

I will refer you to the "READ BEFORE POSTING" thread stickied at the top of this board.

If the information was there in the first place people wouldn't need to ask the questions.

You're proving this not to be the case.

It appears that this topic has run its course. You haven't bothered to read up on the basics, you have no intention of understanding the consequences of EA, and the intention behind your posts is blindingly obvious. Locked.