20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseNo, I am pretty certain that you haven't.
H, I think I figured out which 90 Degree he is talking about, ...
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @twhiteheadWhat else? Surely he wouldn't mean the 90 degree angle of the sun, where light would be going mainly 90 degrees away from centerline?
No, I am pretty certain that you haven't.
21 Jul 17
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYour confidence of what is on the other side of the fence is based on guesswork, nothing more.
No, why would I do that?
[b]Insist the programmer somehow doctored the results?
Seriously. You need a programmed model to figure this out?
Forget what I am claiming and simply look at a model of it.
I don't need to look at a model of it. You are talking nonsense and everybody but you knows it. (OK, you probably also know you are talking nonsense)[/b]
The modeling of a light source from varying distances either reveals a change in the angle of the light as it hits the object, or it doesn't.
You "don't need" to see the model in order to know whether or not such a thing happens.
I have seen the model.
That's exactly what happens.
21 Jul 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhOr rather it is based on having a brain (something you clearly lack).
Your confidence of what is on the other side of the fence is based on guesswork, nothing more.
The modeling of a light source from varying distances either reveals a change in the angle of the light as it hits the object, or it doesn't.
It doesn't.
You "don't need" to see the model in order to know whether or not such a thing happens.
I have seen the model.
That's exactly what happens.
Then you have a broken model, or didn't understand it.
So lets see, your claim is that if a light source is 1m from an object, the angle the light will strike the object will be different than if the light source were 2m from the object.
What is the formula for this angular relationship to distance?
21 Jul 17
Originally posted by @twhiteheadI'm not sure why you wish to complicate it with unnecessary equations, when modeling of the phenomenon paints the picture exactly.
Or rather it is based on having a brain (something you clearly lack).
[b]The modeling of a light source from varying distances either reveals a change in the angle of the light as it hits the object, or it doesn't.
It doesn't.
You "don't need" to see the model in order to know whether or not such a thing happens.
I have seen the model.
Th ...[text shortened]... source were 2m from the object.
What is the formula for this angular relationship to distance?
The inverse-square law (I'm guessing) is what you're fishing at here.
Whether it's that or some other formula is unimportant.
Simply model a light source at different distances from an object and the claim is supported by what you see.
21 Jul 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhNo, I am fishing at that fact that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You don't even know what the word 'angle' means. Its hilarious.
I'm not sure why you wish to complicate it with unnecessary equations, when modeling of the phenomenon paints the picture exactly. The inverse-square law (I'm guessing) is what you're fishing at here.
Whether it's that or some other formula is unimportant.
Simply model a light source at different distances from an object and the claim is supported by what you see.
So, what did you see in your model?
You claimed that at the distance of the sun the angle will be 90 degrees.
At what distances would you get say 89 degrees or 45 degrees?
Please go check your model and get back to me.
21 Jul 17
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYou first!
No, I am fishing at that fact that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You don't even know what the word 'angle' means. Its hilarious.
[b]Whether it's that or some other formula is unimportant.
Simply model a light source at different distances from an object and the claim is supported by what you see.
So, what did you see in your ...[text shortened]... nces would you get say 89 degrees or 45 degrees?
Please go check your model and get back to me.[/b]
25 Jul 17
5 edits
Originally posted by @twhiteheadOut of curiosity, how did Eratosthenes consider the light from the sun?
Just desperate for the last word I see.
"He correctly assumed the Sun’s distance to be very great; its rays therefore are practically parallel when they reach Earth."
-
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes/
25 Jul 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhSounds reasonable.
Out of curiosity, how did Eratosthenes consider the light from the sun?
"He correctly assumed the Sun’s distance to be very great; its rays therefore are practically parallel when they reach Earth."
-
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes/
Of course not the same as the nonsense you have been spouting.
You do know the meaning of the word 'practically'?
And you clearly don't know the meaning of the word 'angle'.
25 Jul 17
Originally posted by @twhiteheadSo you're at a loss.
Sounds reasonable.
Of course not the same as the nonsense you have been spouting.
You do know the meaning of the word 'practically'?
And you clearly don't know the meaning of the word 'angle'.
Again.
Noted.
How do you think he came up with the angles which (in his mind) suggested a rounded surface of the earth?
Is this really that hard for you, that your only recourse is to insult?
25 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhWhat gave you that ridiculous idea? You do speak English do you not?
So you're at a loss.
How do you think he came up with the angles which (in his mind) suggested a rounded surface of the earth?
He used his brain, and knew what an angle was. Both of which you don't.
Is this really that hard for you, that your only recourse is to insult?
It wasn't an insult. Merely an observation that you don't know what an angle is - hence your repeatedly posting nonsense in this thread.
That you are too stupid to look up what 'angle' means - now that is an insult, but a well deserved one.
(given the length of this thread, any sane person would have looked it up by now).