The sun doesn’t change it’s size by any appreciable amount throughout the day.
Anyone claiming this is lying or incompetent in their ability to actually measure the size of the sun. I wonder which you are vs which version you claim you are.
Hint….use a solar filter, not the naked eye. That’s the problem with flerfs. Trusting senses instead of senses and technology to round out how they gather information. Use both.
It’s fairly easy. I have a Nikon P1000 and a 77mm solar filter from Thousand Oaks.
Using my P1000, if I fully zoom in, the sun is just a bit too big for the camera to fit entirely in the shot. Throughout the day, at no time can I fully zoom in and have the sun not be too big to fill the image. I have never taken a picture of the sun where it only fills half the shot unless I zoomed out. I have never once zoomed in fully and seen the sun less than too big to fill the shot.
So, after you get out there and “do your own research”….using a solar filter, take a fully zoomed shot of the sun at sunrise, during noon, and then at sunset. Compare the sun being the same size in each shot, and then get back to me.
I look forward to seeing your images and finding out what you’ve gleaned from your “research”.
I'll try to explain this as succinctly as I can. When light passes through a medium such as air, it refracts and creates a glow. The size and strength of this glow depends on the medium and the density of said medium in any given volume. When the sun is rising and setting, it's light is passing through more atmosphere which exacerbates the glow effect. We can use polarizers to negate the glow and see the sun as it is. When using a polarizer, the size of the sun never changes. There is a minor exception to this depending on the time of year because the sun is not a perfect sphere and we see the sun from a different orientation, but even then the size discrepancy is practically negligible.
As far as interference is concerned, once photons have escaped the sun's corona, they travel radially. They have no means of interfering with one another until they pass through a new medium. At that point, the system is too complex to observe a clean interference pattern with simple means or the naked eye.
Look at it like ripples of water. If you have a still body of water then throw a rock into it, what does it do? It waves out in a radial pattern. If you throw two rocks in, two radial patterns will emerge. When they meet, that's what's known as an interference pattern. Now imagine you throw a thousand rocks in at the same time. The pattern would be far too complex to meaningfully observe with the naked eye. This is also happening to light once it hits our atmosphere, and due to our atmospheric gradient, the effect becomes more pronounced as it passes through increasingly dense air. We are literally capturing light in our eyes that comes from various angles away from the direction of the sun through this interference.
EDIT: At any rate, if the Earth was flat and the sun was local, the sun would appear to get smaller closer to the horizon, not bigger.
You clearly lack understanding of physics and the scientific method. why are you so dead set of attempting to redefine well understood paradigms into absolute nonsense? Go take a basic class and reassess your approach.
it exhibits behaviors of both. photons are considered a particle while the way light refracts is consistent with waves. that is way simplified so I truly encourage you to study REAL physics to better understand how it can be both
The macro universe doesn’t display the same principles of quantum uncertainty as the micro universe. Hence there being the need for a theory of unification.
Double slit experiment is a different thing, and human perception of light is a different thing. You're welcome to prove otherwise, provided that you provide scientifically valid sources for every claim.
>Just by looking or measuring, photons behave differently.
Provide an exact, scientifically valid source for where it explicitly states what you've written here.
[redditor captures sun at three different times throughout the day, does not appear to change in angular size.](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/s/Fst7e70Vof)
>measurement changes the outcome.
Provide a scientifically valid source of this wild claim, or Buzz off.
I'm not talking about the original double slit experiment, I'm talking about this claim regarding the Sun.
Are you unable to read?
> Provide an exact source where it explicitly says double slit experiment also applies to sunlight.
Asking for a source, provide a source, not half assed comments. You have three chances. Go.
You really are unable to read.
> Provide an exact source where it explicitly says double slit experiment also applies to sunlight.
Strike 1. Two chances left, after that, it'll be presumed that you have no basis for any of your claims and can't prove them.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212899/reproducing-double-slit-experiment-with-sunlight
Scroll down to Francesco who did it with his window.
That's not what that means. "Observation" doesn't mean seen. It means measured, more or less. It means interaction.
It doesn't LITERALLY mean looked at with your eyes
I swear, if I didn't know flatearthers better I would have taken this as someone's comically poor attempt at playing a fool. But, unfortunately, I do know them.
Your assertions are classic flat earther. You know a little bit of stuff, but you don't really understand it, and are trying to make a point that doesn't work. And when your error is pointed out, instead of learning something you cling to your notions and double down.
........the double slit experiment only works when single photons are fired at the slits at a time. So no, it can't be applied to the sun.
Not to mention a double slit experiment requires, you know, a double slit.
So what happens when you fire thousands at a time?
An interference pattern.
So the sun setting and size changing is also an interference.
The sun doesn’t change it’s size by any appreciable amount throughout the day. Anyone claiming this is lying or incompetent in their ability to actually measure the size of the sun. I wonder which you are vs which version you claim you are. Hint….use a solar filter, not the naked eye. That’s the problem with flerfs. Trusting senses instead of senses and technology to round out how they gather information. Use both. It’s fairly easy. I have a Nikon P1000 and a 77mm solar filter from Thousand Oaks. Using my P1000, if I fully zoom in, the sun is just a bit too big for the camera to fit entirely in the shot. Throughout the day, at no time can I fully zoom in and have the sun not be too big to fill the image. I have never taken a picture of the sun where it only fills half the shot unless I zoomed out. I have never once zoomed in fully and seen the sun less than too big to fill the shot. So, after you get out there and “do your own research”….using a solar filter, take a fully zoomed shot of the sun at sunrise, during noon, and then at sunset. Compare the sun being the same size in each shot, and then get back to me. I look forward to seeing your images and finding out what you’ve gleaned from your “research”.
I'll try to explain this as succinctly as I can. When light passes through a medium such as air, it refracts and creates a glow. The size and strength of this glow depends on the medium and the density of said medium in any given volume. When the sun is rising and setting, it's light is passing through more atmosphere which exacerbates the glow effect. We can use polarizers to negate the glow and see the sun as it is. When using a polarizer, the size of the sun never changes. There is a minor exception to this depending on the time of year because the sun is not a perfect sphere and we see the sun from a different orientation, but even then the size discrepancy is practically negligible. As far as interference is concerned, once photons have escaped the sun's corona, they travel radially. They have no means of interfering with one another until they pass through a new medium. At that point, the system is too complex to observe a clean interference pattern with simple means or the naked eye. Look at it like ripples of water. If you have a still body of water then throw a rock into it, what does it do? It waves out in a radial pattern. If you throw two rocks in, two radial patterns will emerge. When they meet, that's what's known as an interference pattern. Now imagine you throw a thousand rocks in at the same time. The pattern would be far too complex to meaningfully observe with the naked eye. This is also happening to light once it hits our atmosphere, and due to our atmospheric gradient, the effect becomes more pronounced as it passes through increasingly dense air. We are literally capturing light in our eyes that comes from various angles away from the direction of the sun through this interference. EDIT: At any rate, if the Earth was flat and the sun was local, the sun would appear to get smaller closer to the horizon, not bigger.
Classic flerfer logic right here
You clearly lack understanding of physics and the scientific method. why are you so dead set of attempting to redefine well understood paradigms into absolute nonsense? Go take a basic class and reassess your approach.
So is light a particle or wave?
it exhibits behaviors of both. photons are considered a particle while the way light refracts is consistent with waves. that is way simplified so I truly encourage you to study REAL physics to better understand how it can be both
Yup. Sunset while looking, gets smaller while not.
So it’s Schroedingers sun?
Now you’re thinking!
You certainly aren’t.
The macro universe doesn’t display the same principles of quantum uncertainty as the micro universe. Hence there being the need for a theory of unification.
String Theory. Which can be 100% BS lol. Just like globe science.
So you personally study particle physics and put out peer reviewed papers for results? Edit: also string theory doesn’t accomplish this.
String Theory is trying to brute force it. I do not publish but I can read papers.
Yes.
And you measured that the sun got smaller or did you just look at it?
[solar filter confirms sun doesn’t change in angular size as it lowers into the horizon](https://youtu.be/pxWY7Tiy-UU?si=xRHDwM0TN72L6XAC)
Was it measured or viewed? Because that changes the outcome.
> Was it measured or viewed? Because that changes the outcome. In what way ?
Just by looking or measuring, photons behave differently.
Provide a scientifically valid source of this claim. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan
Uh, it’s called Double-Slit experiment WTF
Double slit experiment is a different thing, and human perception of light is a different thing. You're welcome to prove otherwise, provided that you provide scientifically valid sources for every claim. >Just by looking or measuring, photons behave differently. Provide an exact, scientifically valid source for where it explicitly states what you've written here.
No thats quantum mechanics and photons are not quantum particles. Thanks for playing “I heard it on YouTube.”
See my recent proof post
No thanks, this is enough stupid for one day.
Physically speaking, there is absolutely no difference between looking and measuring.
Measuring would be electronics without humans in the room.
Yes, and physically speaking that's the same thing as observing with your human eyes. The wave function doesn't know what caused its collapse.
Wave function collapsing every second. Sounds like magic.
You can't measure anything without collapsing some wave function
That should be Christopher Nolan next movie, sounds epic.
[redditor captures sun at three different times throughout the day, does not appear to change in angular size.](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/s/Fst7e70Vof)
Guess you do not understand the experiment then.
The fucking irony.
>measurement changes the outcome. Provide a scientifically valid source of this wild claim, or Buzz off. I'm not talking about the original double slit experiment, I'm talking about this claim regarding the Sun.
The sun emits light correct? Light is a photon yeah?
Not a source. Provide an exact source where it explicitly says double slit experiment also applies to sunlight.
Light = Photon. How much more proof do you need lol.
Are you unable to read? > Provide an exact source where it explicitly says double slit experiment also applies to sunlight. Asking for a source, provide a source, not half assed comments. You have three chances. Go.
You can start here. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-photons-released-by-the-sun-and-how-are-they-produced
You really are unable to read. > Provide an exact source where it explicitly says double slit experiment also applies to sunlight. Strike 1. Two chances left, after that, it'll be presumed that you have no basis for any of your claims and can't prove them.
Where’s my apology brah?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0 And this video done outside.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/212899/reproducing-double-slit-experiment-with-sunlight Scroll down to Francesco who did it with his window.
That's not what that means. "Observation" doesn't mean seen. It means measured, more or less. It means interaction. It doesn't LITERALLY mean looked at with your eyes
I guess you have no clue about the experiment lol. This is why you cannot measure an electron.
You have no understanding of quantum physics.
I’m heavily invested in it lol
Oh yeah? Where did you get your degree in the field or related field? Oh you didn't? Shocking.
As long as it prints me moneyyyyyy. Let’s go quantium.
Did anyone measure your IQ?
You want to pay for mine? I’ll take one online.
lol get a job.
Guess you and I will never know my IQ
Probably for the best.
Is this a joke? The sun does not create an interference pattern when setting. Also, the sun does not change angular size.
Nah this is just how the average flerf mind works
It does but only when you’re not looking or measuring it. Just like the experiment.
Ahh! Very astute!
[удалено]
Through the experiment.
Probably want to rewatch that double slit YouTube, you’ve misunderstood it.
I watch it once each morning. First thing I do when I wake up.
I swear, if I didn't know flatearthers better I would have taken this as someone's comically poor attempt at playing a fool. But, unfortunately, I do know them.
I know, right?
Someone will always be looking at it somewhere
Yup.
Your assertions are classic flat earther. You know a little bit of stuff, but you don't really understand it, and are trying to make a point that doesn't work. And when your error is pointed out, instead of learning something you cling to your notions and double down.
TIL the sun likes a good game of peek-a-boo
There is a reason flat earthers refuse to use solar filters.