What is the Sun's Angle?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Who is 'they'?
So far we only have Freaky and his rather badly possed question and incorrect assertion.

From what I can tell, there's been but one assertion: I'm talking about light beams hitting the planet and what that angle necessarily must be, whilst others are stuck on the angle of light based on the sun's position in the earth's sky.
That's a pretty big difference, no matter what you believe.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
From what I can tell, there's been but one assertion:

Agreed. And it was a false one.

That's a pretty big difference, no matter what you believe.
Of course. But you got a whole range of answers because your original question was poorly phrased and people just guessed at what you meant.

I'm talking about light beams hitting the planet and what that angle necessarily must be,
An angle is formed between two lines. You are talking about the line a given light beam makes and what other line? Your sentence above suggests the other line is the surface of the planet, but your earlier statements about parallel light beams suggest you mean the angle between two light beams. The real problem in this thread is that you have utterly failed to express your point (if you actually have one) in language that anyone else can understand.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm talking about light beams hitting the planet and what that angle necessarily must be,

To help me understand your question, answer this question:
If I have a light bulb 1m away from a wall, what angle must the light beams hitting the wall be?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Agreed. And it was a false one.

[b]That's a pretty big difference, no matter what you believe.
Of course. But you got a whole range of answers because your original question was poorly phrased and people just guessed at what you meant.

I'm talking about light beams hitting the planet and what that angle necessarily must be,
An angle i ...[text shortened]... ed to express your point (if you actually have one) in language that anyone else can understand.[/b]

I'm not sure it can be dumbed down any further than the OP, honestly.
There are but two points: sun, earth.
Distance between two points results in varying angles of straight lines between them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not sure it can be dumbed down any further than the OP, honestly.

Nobody has asked you to dumb it down. You have been asked to undumb it ie clarify what it is you are asking.

There are but two points: sun, earth.
Neither is a point.

Distance between two points results in varying angles of straight lines between them.
There can only be one straight line between two points (by definition). Hence there cannot be angles between such lines.

Now try and answer my light and wall question and it might just dawn on you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not sure it can be dumbed down any further than the OP, honestly.
There are but two points: sun, earth.
Distance between two points results in varying angles of straight lines between them.

Answer to Twhitehead if you can't answer me, the sun and Earth are not points You can connect a line between closest distances, where they would touch if brought together, and from that point you will see there is an angle of you draw a line from the center point of either to the opposite, center of Sol to edge of Earth is a different angle than the zero degree line connecting closest points.

You would agree I hope that at an angle of 90 degrees away from that center line on the sun side the light there would be mostly going at 90 degrees and would have to have mirrors to force the light at the edges to hit Earth parallel to the light on the line connecting the two closest points. Bottom line is whoever thought the light would be parallel is full of poop.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

There are but two points: sun, earth.

1, they aren't points but roughly spherical thus are both 3D (3-dimensional) objects.

2, how can you believe the Earth is BOTH flat AND just a point? -that makes no sense. "flat" implies 2D; a point is 1D.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nobody has asked you to dumb it down. You have been asked to undumb it ie clarify what it is you are asking.

[b]There are but two points: sun, earth.
Neither is a point.

Distance between two points results in varying angles of straight lines between them.
There can only be one straight line between two points (by definition). Hence ther ...[text shortened]... ween such lines.

Now try and answer my light and wall question and it might just dawn on you.[/b]

Oh, dear.
I'm afraid I haven't made it as simple as you apparently need it.
I apologize.

The sum is--- by all or most accounts--- a ball.
The light from said ball will necessarily follow its shape and be sent forth in ALL directions.
The closer the the POINTS are to each other, i.e., the sun and the earth, the more varied will be the beams--- and thus the angles--- between the two.
After more and more distance, those angles from the ball will become less varied until it--- all of the light beams from the source hitting the second point--- are reduced to one angle, and one angle only.
For proof, consider any star other than the sun.
ALL of its light is but one beam.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

The sum is--- by all or most accounts--- a ball.

.[/b]

correct.

The closer the the POINTS are to each other, i.e., the sun and the earth,

wrong; they are ball-shaped, not points.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oh, dear.
I'm afraid I haven't made it as simple as you apparently need it.
I apologize.

Or rather you haven't yet realised why your question doesn't make any sense.

The sum is--- by all or most accounts--- a ball.
I take it you mean the sun.
Its a very big sphere. So big we can easily distinguish between different parts of it.

The light from said ball will necessarily follow its shape and be sent forth in ALL directions. The closer the the POINTS are to each other, i.e., the sun and the earth, the more varied will be the beams--- and thus the angles--- between the two.
Except for the fact that neither the sun nor the earth are points, and if they were, then no more than ONE beam could go from one to the other.

After more and more distance, those angles from the ball will become less varied until it--- all of the light beams from the source hitting the second point--- are reduced to one angle, and one angle only.
Obviously false.

For proof, consider any star other than the sun.
ALL of its light is but one beam.
No, it is not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or rather you haven't yet realised why your question doesn't make any sense.

[b]The sum is--- by all or most accounts--- a ball.
I take it you mean the sun.
Its a very big sphere. So big we can easily distinguish between different parts of it.

The light from said ball will necessarily follow its shape and be sent forth in ALL directions. Th ...[text shortened]... of, consider any star other than the sun.
ALL of its light is but one beam.
No, it is not.[/b]

Essentially, the distance reduces the rays into one angle.
One angle from the stars, one angle from the sun.
Model it: when the points are close, the light is angled.
When the points have distance, angles disappear and they all come in one direction.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Essentially, the distance reduces the rays into one angle.

No, it doesn't.

One angle from the stars, one angle from the sun.
Not true in either case.

Model it: when the points are close, the light is angled.
When the points have distance, angles disappear and they all come in one direction.
No, they just become very small angles. They don't disappear.
In the case of the sun, it is trivial to set up a pinhole camera and measure the largest angles for yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter

As you can see from that page, even the nearest stars have a measurable angular width on the sky.
For more distant stars the angular difference between light rays is not measurable, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you are reading this thread.

Who says I am? I just skim to see if there is anything to learn. More often than not I don't, neither from you nor Mr Freak.

Two people exchange meaningless comments, just to waste time, getting hours nearer to their respective deaths. Well, who wins? Neither.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Who says I am? I just skim to see if there is anything to learn. More often than not I don't, neither from you nor Mr Freak.

Two people exchange meaningless comments, just to waste time, getting hours nearer to their respective deaths. Well, who wins? Neither.

And this comment of yours is meaningful and has something to learn from it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it doesn't.

[b]One angle from the stars, one angle from the sun.
Not true in either case.

Model it: when the points are close, the light is angled.
When the points have distance, angles disappear and they all come in one direction.
No, they just become very small angles. They don't disappear.
In the case of the sun, it is trivial ...[text shortened]... e angular difference between light rays is not measurable, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.[/b]

And that link has literally nothing to support your argument.
Modeling it proves mine emphatically.