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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.