Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 8:43 PM
355 online now:
Coragyps, halibut, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Rrhain (7 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,364 Year: 23,970/21,208 Month: 1,935/2,468 Week: 28/416 Day: 28/24 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Flat Earth Society
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 76 of 113 (819252)
09-08-2017 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:

Well, dissmissing or criticising an experiment without even viewing it is hardly objective is it. In fact its an assumption in itself.

I haven't done either yet, simply raising an important caution - especially in the light of the mistake with the fenceposts. And if this experiment is actually important you should be describing it.

quote:

But this one argument they present regarding crepuscular rays, the experiment and examples they give against the "perspective" explination is a very good one.

So far that doesn't seem to be true. The objection about the fenceposts was irrelevant and the two photographs you produced in Message 70 tend to support the perspective explanation.

quote:

And even if we simply dissmiss their evidence as garbage or whatever I don't think perspective can account for such a wide spread of rays covering almost 180 degrees as shown here

Don't you ? The rays are heading straight for the observer, just like the railroad tracks. Doesn't the fact that you've picked an example where the perspective effect would be very strong seem rather relevant ? Compare with your cityscape where there is no sign of the light spreading.

In fact it certainly could be due to perspective. To say it isn't you'd have to start arguing about the distances and the geometry. And you haven't said a word about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 9:36 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 10:57 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 77 of 113 (819255)
09-08-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
OK now I've wasted nearly fifteen minutes watching that worthless video.

The experiments don't even try to address the question.

The dismissal of perspective is just plain wrong - and I've already explained why.

Just useless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 9:36 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 11:00 AM PaulK has responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 78 of 113 (819256)
09-08-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
09-08-2017 9:57 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:
The rays are heading straight for the observer

Thats not possible in the last picture I posted as the sun is beyond the horizon.
Perhaps you missed it...

Again... This is their view not mine. Im just trying to understand, not debunk.

Ur just dissmissing or arguing against something u haven't even seen yet.

Can someone please add something constructive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 9:57 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 11:06 AM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-08-2017 12:17 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 101 by CRR, posted 09-10-2017 7:15 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 79 of 113 (819257)
09-08-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
09-08-2017 10:55 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:
don't even try to address the question

What question?
What is wrong with the first experiment? Why is this perspective not present?
Why can't we replicate it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 10:55 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 11:07 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 80 of 113 (819258)
09-08-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 10:57 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:

Thats not possible in the last picture I posted as the sun is beyond the horizon

You do realise that actually supports my point ? It's not possible to get anything further away from being directly overhead and still get sunlight. Even the guy who made that dumb video realised the importance of the sun being overhead.

quote:

Again... This is their view not mine. Im just trying to understand, not debunk

Then I am afraid that you are doing a very poor job.

Again you need to consider the actual geometry, the angles and the distances if you are going to get to the truth. That's where the video failed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 10:57 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 11:17 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 81 of 113 (819259)
09-08-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 11:00 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:

What question?

The question of whether the appearance of crepuscular rays is due to perspective or not. That is the only real question here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 11:00 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 82 of 113 (819260)
09-08-2017 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
09-08-2017 11:06 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
Your point was...
quote:
The rays are heading straight for the observer

The rays in the picture are not heading straight for the observer at all.

U dissmissed the question before seeing it. U then dissmiss the experiment and examples without any explination. Obviously ur here for one thing only which is not what im here for

Hope someone can add something intelligent to this conversation cos this condescending attitude is far from helpful or constructive

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 11:06 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2017 11:31 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13125
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 83 of 113 (819261)
09-08-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 11:17 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:

The rays in the picture are not heading straight for the observer at all.

They aren't ? Go on, explain. Do you think they are coming from directly overhead ?

quote:

U dissmissed the question before seeing it.

Which question ?

quote:

U then dissmiss the experiment and examples without any explination

The experiment doesn't address the question of perspective as I said. I explained why the arguments against the perspective explanation are worthless.

Again to refute the perspective explanation you need to deal with the actual geometry. The video never attempted that.

quote:

Obviously ur here for one thing only which is not what im here for

Obviously I am trying to help you understand. If you were truly neutral on the issue you wouldn't be so upset that I disagree with the arguments and point to their flaws. And you certainly wouldn't keep ignoring the substantive points that I make.

It is increasingly obvious that you are here to troll.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 11:17 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 84 of 113 (819265)
09-08-2017 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 10:57 AM


Re: Crepuscular rays
Porkncheese writes:

Can someone please add something constructive


How far away do they think the sun is?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 10:57 AM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 12:33 PM ringo has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 85 of 113 (819267)
09-08-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by ringo
09-08-2017 12:17 PM


Re: Crepuscular rays
According to google its 149.6 million km.

Please everyone read my original post on this.
Cos if your just looking to be condescending I never refuted anything.
Id appreciate it if people adressed the points made in the original post and be helpful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by ringo, posted 09-08-2017 12:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 09-08-2017 12:54 PM Porkncheese has responded
 Message 94 by dwise1, posted 09-09-2017 1:53 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 113 (819269)
09-08-2017 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Porkncheese
09-08-2017 12:33 PM


Re: Crepuscular rays
Porkncheese writes:

According to google its 149.6 million km.


No, we think it's 149.6 million km. I asked you what they think.

In Message 62 you said, "They claim these rays ought to be vertical and parallel (as I also envisage) but that their angled rays show that the sun is not far from us." So how far from us do "they" think the sun is?

The point being that we have other ways of measuring the distance to the sun. Even if the crepuscular thingy was a valid, it wouldn't negate everything else we know. There is no silver bullet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 12:33 PM Porkncheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Porkncheese, posted 09-08-2017 2:44 PM ringo has responded

  
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 87 of 113 (819271)
09-08-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ringo
09-08-2017 12:54 PM


Re: Crepuscular rays
quote:
There is no silver bullet

What silver bullet? Oh i know, that bullet. Their trying to shoot you. Your trying to shoot them. Its a war. Both sides just looking to shoot each other.

U didn't bother to read my original post.

So far no one has helped me understand anything apart from this stupid war.

The best answer to my own question is provided by myself in the 2nd link of my first post. Which not surprisingly went unoticed.
Im totally aware that mathematics supports our knowledge of the suns distance. I trust mathematics. Debates are rare compared to the metaphysical fields of science.

I simply asked if there was an example or demonstration we can observe which supports visiual perspective of crepuscular rays. And basically asked for help visually applying the perspective I recognise in engineering to the dynamic physics of light from the sun. Instead I get pre conceived condescending arguments and get responses like...
"It wouldn't negate everything else we know. There is no silver bullet" Not what I said
And "The dismissal of perspective is just plain wrong" Not what I said either

Seeing im getting no where here and cannot find such an experiment where this can be observed im just going to go into a drafting program and animate it in 3D.
See if that helps me visualize it.

Why do I even bother with such single mindedness.
Its clear this is just a war which I don't belong.

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 09-08-2017 12:54 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 09-09-2017 11:40 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded
 Message 97 by CRR, posted 09-10-2017 6:12 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 88 of 113 (819277)
09-08-2017 5:04 PM


Dude, seriously
We have this thing in the sky called the International Space Station where people can pictures of the Earth. It's round.


Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 09-08-2017 5:35 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Porkncheese, posted 09-14-2017 1:10 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29365
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 89 of 113 (819278)
09-08-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Taq
09-08-2017 5:04 PM


Re: Dude, seriously
Remember new students know everything; it is only after years of experience that all the wrong things they know get sucked out.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 09-08-2017 5:04 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6149
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 90 of 113 (819283)
09-08-2017 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by CRR
09-08-2017 3:28 AM


Re: Do the Math!
CRR responds to me:

quote:
OK, Happy now?

Nope.

Because, once again: He never actually did that.

Just like Newton was never hit on the head by an apple and suddenly came up with his theory of gravity.

It's a popular story and pleasant to consider, but he never actually did it.

Instead, he had another experiment in mind.

quote:
If it wasn't Galileo then it was Simon Stevin and Jan Cornets de Groot. And if Galileo did perform the experiment then he was replicating Stevin & de Groot.

Nope. They were in the Netherlands, not Pisa.

Since you seem to be incapable of doing your homework, let me educate you. He described it in his treatise, On Motion:

Consider two objects, one heavy and one light, connected by a string. If you were to drop them, what would happen?

Well, if objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass, then the combined object would fall as fast as each individual object.

But if there is a discrepancy, if lighter objects fall more slowly, then the lighter object would start to fall behind, creating a drag upon the larger object as the string became taut and the combined object would fall more slowly than the heavier object.

But the combined object is necessarily heavier than the individual heavy object so if heavier objects fall faster, the combined object should fall faster than heavier object on its own.

Thus, we have a contradiction: This object should fall both faster and slower than the heavier object alone. That cannot be. Therefore, the original assumption that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones is shown to be false. Instead, they fall at the same rate.

You should consider reading what he actually wrote about the motion of falling bodies. Have you read Two New Sciences? In it, he discusses the motion of bodies falling down an inclined plane where he noted that they fell consistently. He then worked out that you could increase the angle of the plane to perpendicular and you'd describe a body in free-fall.

And it's there that he pointed out that you would need to have a vacuum in order to directly show that the effect on gravity on falling bodies is uniform, regardless of mass.

So clearly, Galileo understood that air resistance has an effect upon falling bodies and that you need to account for it.

You can easily work this out given the equations for force and gravitation:

F = ma => a = F/m

F = GMm/r^2 (M is mass of earth and m is mass of object)

a = (GMm/r^2) / m => GM/r^2

Notice that the mass of the object cancels out and the acceleration is based solely upon the mass of the earth and the distance between the objects.

Besides, the Pisa experiment has been carried out. And sure enough, the balls hit at the same time.

And if you still can't wrap your head around it, be aware that the experiment has been recreated at Pisa:


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CRR, posted 09-08-2017 3:28 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by CRR, posted 09-10-2017 6:08 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017