Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[JohnMartin]

An Invalidation of the Helio Model - Apparently the sun is about 150,000,000 miles away from the earth, yet we can see with our own eyes that the sun is small an close.


The local sun sits above the clouds and sends rays that disperse at various angles as they pass through the cloud.

csun1.jpg
Picture 1

When we compare the local sun as observed with the distant sun of the Helio model, the Helio model has no way to account for the localised effects of the sun.

csun2.jpg
Picture 2

Helio predicts parallel rays that illuminate a large area of the earth.

csun3.jpg
Picture 3

Helio model prediction - distant sun that is large, will equally illuminate a large portion of the earths surface with no local intensity of light over a small area.

Observation in Picture 1 - We see the local sun unequally illuminate a portion of the earth and other portions of the earths surface with a different luminosity.

Helio model prediction - distant sun that is large, will have parallel light rays which will enter and illuminate the atmosphere with parallel rays.

Observation in Picture 1 - We see the local sun illuminate the earth with rays at widely varying angles as they pass through the clouds.

The Helio model predicts various effects of light on the earth and we observe very different effects from the sun acting on earth. The observations show the Helio model to be invalidated by a very large amount.

JM

[JohnMartin]

When you manage to get a torch that is as bright as the sun, you will be amazed at how much light reflects off of a grey ball of dirt.

It won't be the intense light like we see from the moon.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

An Invalidation of the Helio Model - Apparently the sun is about 150,000,000 miles away from the earth, yet we can see with our own eyes that the sun is small an close.


The local sun sits above the clouds and sends rays that disperse at various angles as they pass through the cloud.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13280[/ATTACH]
Picture 1

When we compare the local sun as observed with the distant sun of the Helio model, the Helio model has no way to account for the localised effects of the sun.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13281[/ATTACH]
Picture 2

Helio predicts parallel rays that illuminate a large area of the earth.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13282[/ATTACH]
Picture 3

Helio model prediction - distant sun that is large, will equally illuminate a large portion of the earths surface with no local intensity of light over a small area.

Observation in Picture 1 - We see the local sun unequally illuminate a portion of the earth and other portions of the earths surface with a different luminosity.

Helio model prediction - distant sun that is large, will have parallel light rays which will enter and illuminate the atmosphere with parallel rays.

Observation in Picture 1 - We see the local sun illuminate the earth with rays at widely varying angles as they pass through the clouds.

The Helio model predicts various effects of light on the earth and we observe very different effects from the sun acting on earth. The observations show the Helio model to be invalidated by a very large amount.

JM

What lunacy!

[JohnMartin]

What lunacy!

We agree that Helio is lunacy.

JM

[klaus54]

Make a ball of earth and see the light dispersed and with far less luminosity than a white soccer ball. The dirt ball is far more like the moon than the white soccer ball. There is no intense reflection of light from a dirt ball, but we see this from the moon.

JM

11% of incident light is reflected by material of the Moon's composition.

That's a fact.

It's called "science".

Try it sometime.

BTW: I advised you use a soccer ball, not because of the color (although you could probably find a gray ball), but that's it's not perfectly smooth so it will refute your idiotic statement in an earlier post that light hitting the Moon would be scattered in such a manner that it wouldn't be bright enough to be seen from Earth.

[klaus54]

We agree that Helio is lunacy.

JM

Yes, Flat-Earthism is.

So is alchemy.

[klaus54]

5 centuries and 2 thousand years ago that you think changed our understanding of physics. I posit you were referring to Copernicus and the ancient experiment done to calculate the curvature of the earth.

JM

Pretty much.

But you know the history.

Schizophrenia is hell, ain't it?

[klaus54]

When you manage to get a torch that is as bright as the sun, you will be amazed at how much light reflects off of a grey ball of dirt.

Yep.

An arc welder makes a great small light source with an apparent magnitude similar to Sol.

Make a ball of dirt, or better, find a piece of basalt and view it a meter or so from the bright arc and notice the reflected luminosity.

But you can see a chunk of basalt via reflected light from a flashlight in a darkened room.

This ain't rocket science...

arc_welding.jpg

[klaus54]

It won't be the intense light like we see from the moon.

JM

{Roy: Please add "scaling" to the list.}

[klaus54]

An Invalidation of the Helio Model - Apparently the sun is about 150,000,000 miles away from the earth, yet we can see with our own eyes that the sun is small an close.


The local sun sits above the clouds and sends rays that disperse at various angles as they pass through the cloud.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13280[/ATTACH]
Picture 1

When we compare the local sun as observed with the distant sun of the Helio model, the Helio model has no way to account for the localised effects of the sun.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13281[/ATTACH]
Picture 2

Helio predicts parallel rays that illuminate a large area of the earth.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13282[/ATTACH]
Picture 3

Helio model prediction - distant sun that is large, will equally illuminate a large portion of the earths surface with no local intensity of light over a small area.

Observation in Picture 1 - We see the local sun unequally illuminate a portion of the earth and other portions of the earths surface with a different luminosity.

Helio model prediction - distant sun that is large, will have parallel light rays which will enter and illuminate the atmosphere with parallel rays.

Observation in Picture 1 - We see the local sun illuminate the earth with rays at widely varying angles as they pass through the clouds.

The Helio model predicts various effects of light on the earth and we observe very different effects from the sun acting on earth. The observations show the Helio model to be invalidated by a very large amount.

JM

Here ya go, Son.

Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm

K54

P.S. I'm purdy sure Beagle already addressed this non-problem.

[klaus54]

{Roy: Add "projective geometry" to the list.}

[JohnMartin]

11% of incident light is reflected by material of the Moon's composition.

That's a fact.

It's called "science".

Try it sometime.

BTW: I advised you use a soccer ball, not because of the color (although you could probably find a gray ball), but that's it's not perfectly smooth so it will refute your idiotic statement in an earlier post that light hitting the Moon would be scattered in such a manner that it wouldn't be bright enough to be seen from Earth.

I thought I said we would not see the sun light from the moon as bright as what we see.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Pretty much.

But you know the history.

Schizophrenia is hell, ain't it?

Just Helio myth you people push. I escaped from it some time and its been a hoot ever since. Apparently all of Galileo's arguments were refuted at trial and he recanted his moving earth theory before he died. The recantation was apparently done freely as well. You'll be hard pressed to find this in the media. If you want to push the modern, Helio model meta-narrative, then maybe you should include this little tid bit. Galileo died a geostatist-geocentrist and not a Heliocentrist.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Here ya go, Son.

Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm

K54

P.S. I'm purdy sure Beagle already addressed this non-problem.

Beagle claims the suns rays only appear to diverge due to perspective effects. Then he compares the divergent rays to the plowed field. This comparison only works if the suns rays are initially parallel, but seen to converge along the line of sight running parallel, similar to the plow lines in the field. When we see the suns rays, those rays are not viewed along the line of sight from the earth to sun, (as the plow lines are viewed along the direction of the plow lines) but at a large angle from parallel to the suns rays. Also if you move relative to the plowed field the plow lines will continue to converge into the background, with the lines appearing to move as you move. However in say a helicopter, viewing the suns rays at an angle, the angle at which the suns rays pass through the clouds does not move according to the principle of convergence, indicating the angle of the suns rays is not an effect of perspective, but caused by a local source of light above the clouds.

How do we know this is confirmed to be true? If we see a sun ray at an angle then we get into a helicopter and fly over to the sun ray, we will not see the sun's ray change locally due to convergence, but we will see pretty much the same angle of sun ray, standing directly under the ray. Therefore, because there is only a minor change in sun ray angle, when seen from a distance, to that seen standing under the cloud, then the suns ray angle, truly is at an angle. The divergent angles of the sun rays provide evidence for a close sun.

Stated in another way. If a man walks in front of the viewer in the plow field, the man will be seen to walk over a series of converging lines, which are in fact parallel. If a helicopter flies through the suns angled rays, both the viewer from earth and viewer in the helicopter will both sees the suns rays as angled, and not parallel. Therefore perspective does not account for the angled suns rays.

Stated another way. If the plowed field is horizontal and then made vertical, the plowed lines will change from being viewed as convergent to a distant horizon, to being parallel, without a distant horizon. If the suns rays are tipped from being vertical, to horizontal, the suns rays will be seen to change from diverse angles in the vertical, pointing to a close sun, to even more diverse and more convergent in the horizontal, converging to a horizontal horizon. The difference seen between the parallel line in the field and the sun's angled rays mean the sun's rays are at real angles, and are not parallel.

The explanation in the link has at least one fallacy. It assumes parallel lines running away from the viewer in the field converge because of perspective. Then it assumes the same effect occurs when viewing suns rays in the vertical. The vertical view of the sun's rays does not have the same perspective effect as the horizontal view of the field, simply because the vertical view would have perspective in the horizontal according to suns rays converging along a horizontal plane and not the vertical plane of the sun above the clouds.

In summary - a field of parallel line converges in the horizontal convergence point due to perspective. Similarly the vertical suns rays also converge at a horizontal convergence point due to perspective. Do we see this with the suns rays? No, we see a vertical convergence of the rays above the clouds, which is not accounted for by the horizontal convergence expected by perspective.

The perspective solution to the divergence of the suns rays above the clouds is fallacious.

Any other proposed solutions to the FE claim of a close sun above the clouds?

JM

[Raphael]

Just Helio myth you people push. I escaped from it some time and its been a hoot ever since. Apparently all of Galileo's arguments were refuted at trial and he recanted his moving earth theory before he died. The recantation was apparently done freely as well. You'll be hard pressed to find this in the media. If you want to push the modern, Helio model meta-narrative, then maybe you should include this little tid bit. Galileo died a geostatist-geocentrist and not a Heliocentrist.

JM

Galileo's trial had little to do with the science of his model and everything to to with the fact that he portrayed the Pope (who had been his sponsor) as a simpleton.