The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 11:47:34 AM »
(Message edited to correct some typos and fix a pair of issues)

Yes. You read well.

The FE model uses a light hypothesys that allows us demonstrate that the Moon can't be seen during night.


We will cover several aspects from the FE model and use several of their hypothesys.

Lets knee deep into the thing:


First, I will review what FE model says about the Day and Night cycles, and how they work, if their earth was flat:

Quote
(http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F)
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth.

According to this, and if the earth were flat, then the sun could be seen always, even if it is night, because there would be no possible obstacle for the rays of the sun to travel to the infinite.
Because we cannot see the sun during night, the FE model proposes a solution for this.

According to the FE model, the rays of light from the Sun bend up, so they can't reach our eyes beyond the terminator.

Quoting what the FE wiki says:

Quote
(http://wiki.tfes.org/Optics#Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
Electromagnetic Accelerator
The Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory calls for light to be "bent" upwards as it travels towards the earth. The path of light is a parabolic arc. It is commonly abbreviated to EA.

Day/Night with Electromagnetic Accelerator
When the sun is too far away rays are bent in a parabolic arc before they reach earth, resulting in night time.



The Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA from now on) is compatible with the Night and Day cycles, and it even can give an explanation why the sun can't be seen from a place at night.


But, how do we can calculate the Y position of a photon while traveling?

The FE model kindly gives us a formula to calculate this:


(http://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator)

where X and Y are the position of the photon; c the speed of light in a vacuun, and β is the Bishop constant, that gives the magnitude of the acceleration.

This formula per-se, doesn't make any sense, since in the FE model as depicted in the wiki, doesn't exist gravity as "attraction between two bodies due to their mass", and the formula talks about accelerating a ray of light, but the only way to accelerate the light is to change its relative distance from an object with mass that has gravitational force, but since the FE model the gravity is not an attraction force, then the photons can't accelerate in either direction.

There is also the Davis Model, where it is stated that the Earth do have gravitational force as everyone knows today, and it is an atraction force. In this case, there is gravitational force, so if the photons are being accelerated upwards, it means that there is a gravitational force in the firmament that is able to bend the light. The only way that a mass can bend the light, is if it's gravity is infinite (yes, like in a black hole), so in this case, the existence of the earth itself is a contradiction, because if the light is bent up by infinite gravity, then the source of gravity is close enought to attract everything that has mass and is near the source of light!!!

This, automatically invalidates the EA and everything derived from it. But since I'm not trying to demonstrate that now, lets just simply accept that the photons accelerate because they have a rocket attached to them.



In either case, the Sun illuminates from the Arctic to the Antarctic, which is a distance of ~6300 Km.
This means that a photon that starts travelling from the Sun, parallel to the earth surface, can be seen by a person that is at the same heigh as the sun (4828 Km), and at a maximun distance of ~3150 Km from the Sun.

The meaning of this is that, beyond ~3150 Km from the sun there is no light from the sun at all. Otherwise, we would be able to see the sun during the night.

According to this, when the distance from the Sun to the Moon is more than ~3150 Km, then there won't be light from the Sun reaching the Moon, so the Moon can't reflect any light from the Sun, making it invisible, and this will happen only during the night.

The logical conclussion is that the Moon, in the FE model as depicted in the wiki, can't be seen during the night because the Moon and the Sun are in the same plane of orbit, and the photons from the Sun in such plane are no longer in such plane beyond ~3150 Km.

But in fact, we see the moon during the night, making again the FE model invalid and contradictory.


Conclussion: according to all logical deductions, and using the FE model formulae, we concluded that such model is wrong again since it states that the Moon can't be seen during nightime, while the reality shows us otherwise.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 04:49:52 PM by Yamato »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4761
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2014, 03:22:56 PM »
Actually, some FE'ers (including the eminent Samuel Birley Rowbotham of Earth Not a Globe fame) believe that the moon is self-luminous and has no need for solar illumination. 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2014, 03:27:03 PM »
Actually, some FE'ers (including the eminent Samuel Birley Rowbotham of Earth Not a Globe fame) believe that the moon is self-luminous and has no need for solar illumination.
Yeah but if you subscribe to that then you'd have to ignore the fact that the side that is illuminated is always the side facing the sun. Whether that's because the light comes from the sun or the moon itself is pretty irrelevant. We at least know there is a relationship between what is illuminated on the moon and the position of the sun.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6670
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2014, 04:07:56 PM »
I would expect the FEers who espouse that view to say it was an awfully fortunate coincidence that the moon emits light in exactly the way it should if it were illuminated by the sun.

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2014, 04:21:46 PM »
I would expect the FEers who espouse that view to say it was an awfully fortunate coincidence that the moon emits light in exactly the way it should if it were illuminated by the sun.
Yeah but even we say that it is an amazing coincidence, the ops summation that some locations would never see some phases of the moon is correct.

Edit: actually I think the op was saying we would never see the moon. I'm not so sure about that, but some phases in some locations would never be seen.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 04:29:02 PM by rottingroom »

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2014, 04:35:27 PM »
Actually, some FE'ers (including the eminent Samuel Birley Rowbotham of Earth Not a Globe fame) believe that the moon is self-luminous and has no need for solar illumination.

(I edited the message to correct typos only)

Ok, let's accept then, that the Moon is self-luminous:

we have that the light bends up and becomes "invisible" for anyone, when the photons have traveled ~6300 Km from the Sun.

Because your Flat Earth is a disc instead of a sphere, we can easily calculate the maximun surface illuminated by the sun:



Where r is the radius of the illumination circle. Because the illumination circle goes from the Arctic to the Antartic, this circle has a diameter equal to the radius of the Earth: 6300 Km, we need the half of this, which is 3150 Km:





This value area is the area that the sun can illuminate at most. Everything outside this area is considered night in any FE model flavor.

Now, lets say it is full moon, so the Moon should be seen from every place that is night, i.e. everywhere that is not being illuminated by the sun.

Lets (wrongly) suppose again that the moon has a light magnitude equal to the one by the Sun, so the self-luminous moon will illuminate a surface of equal dimensions as the sun during the day (which obviously is false, but lets give the FE a huge error margin).

Now, lets calculate the total surface of the earth as a flat disk, basically a circle:



we use the same circle formula, but in this case, r is the radius of the earth:






Now, we have the total earth surface.

If we now deduct the "day" and the "night" area from the total earth area we have the next:





What this means? This means that we have an area of ~62 millions of Km^2 where not the moon, nor the sun can be seen, no matter how try you hard, but according to any observation, when it is full moon, it can be seen from anywhere during night!!!


So I don't mind if the Moon if self-luminous because we are on the same gap as before, which is the FE contradicting itself even taking different flavors of your hypothesys.

Maybe we need another Moon to illuminate that enigmatic area?

Mind giving an explanation, Sir Markjo?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 04:56:48 PM by Yamato »

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2014, 04:39:30 PM »
[...]
Edit: actually I think the op was saying we would never see the moon. I'm not so sure about that, but some phases in some locations would never be seen.

Sorry I saw your edit after posting my previous message:
It's clear that the Sun light NEVER reach beyond the terminator. Since the Moon is at the same height over the surface as the Sun, then the light from the Sun will never reach the Moon during night (beyond the terminator), so you can't see the moon at all, no matter full moon, or quarter or whatever.

That, if the Moon is not self-luminous.

But in case the Moon is self-luminous, the thing is wrost (read my previous answer just there up)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 04:41:37 PM by Yamato »

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2014, 04:43:26 PM »
[...]
Edit: actually I think the op was saying we would never see the moon. I'm not so sure about that, but some phases in some locations would never be seen.

Sorry I saw your edit after posting my previous message:
It's clear that the Sun light NEVER reach beyond the terminator. Since the Moon is at the same height over the surface as the Sun, then the light from the Sun will never reach the Moon during night (beyond the terminator), so you can't see the moon at all, no matter full moon, or quarter or whatever.

That, if the Moon is not self-luminous.

But in case the Moon is self-luminous, the thing is wrost (read my previous answer just there up)
Ah I see what you mean now.

If illuminated by the sun, then no moon because of EA.

If self illuminating then some phases from some locations are never observed.

Either situation is not what is observed.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 04:48:22 PM by rottingroom »

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2014, 05:00:51 PM »
[...]

If self illuminating then some phases from some locations are never observed.

[...]

The moon phase doesn't mind here.
We are talking about the light emited by the Moon if it was self-luminous, can't reach certain parts of the earth because of the the light acceleration upwards.

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2014, 05:02:35 PM »
[...]

If self illuminating then some phases from some locations are never observed.

[...]

The moon phase doesn't mind here.
We are talking about the light emited by the Moon if it was self-luminous, can't reach certain parts of the earth because of the the light acceleration upwards.
Sure. I'm also coming at it an angle where we disregard EA. The point I want to make here is that even without EA, and even with moonshrimp, the observations are inconsistent with FE models.

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2014, 05:16:18 PM »
Sure. I'm also coming at it an angle where we disregard EA. The point I want to make here is that even without EA, and even with moonshrimp, the observations are inconsistent with FE models.

I'm not sure what are you saying. Are you talking about the Bishop constant? Otherwise, I don't understand you.

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2014, 05:21:20 PM »
Sure. I'm also coming at it an angle where we disregard EA. The point I want to make here is that even without EA, and even with moonshrimp, the observations are inconsistent with FE models.

I'm not sure what are you saying. Are you talking about the Bishop constant? Otherwise, I don't understand you.
It's not complicated. You seem to be smart enough to understand the simple things I've mentioned.

EA + sun illumination = no moon
EA + moon illumination = no moon

Those were your points

In addition I said that:

No EA + sun illumination = missing phases in some locations
No EA + moon illumination = missing phases in some locations

I agree with you. I've added to it saying that even without EA, FE predictions don't match observation. Mostly because I didn't understand your point about EA at first but now I do. So both of our contentions are basically showing that FET in regard to the moon are false.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 05:23:47 PM by rottingroom »

Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2014, 08:53:17 PM »
Sure. I'm also coming at it an angle where we disregard EA. The point I want to make here is that even without EA, and even with moonshrimp, the observations are inconsistent with FE models.

I'm not sure what are you saying. Are you talking about the Bishop constant? Otherwise, I don't understand you.
It's not complicated. You seem to be smart enough to understand the simple things I've mentioned.

EA + sun illumination = no moon
EA + moon illumination = no moon

Those were your points

In addition I said that:

No EA + sun illumination = missing phases in some locations
No EA + moon illumination = missing phases in some locations

I agree with you. I've added to it saying that even without EA, FE predictions don't match observation. Mostly because I didn't understand your point about EA at first but now I do. So both of our contentions are basically showing that FET in regard to the moon are false.

Ah, ok, nice, I didn't understand well what you wrote. It's my english is quite bad  :-[