Tech/Inverse-square law: Difference between revisions
added Heliocentric Model - lights in the sky and video link
(added Reference) |
(added Heliocentric Model - lights in the sky and video link) |
||
Line 38:
====Light and other electromagnetic radiation====
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source, so an object (of the same size) twice as far away receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
====Heliocentric Model - lights in the sky ====
Using the inverse square law of light and the heliocentric assumptions of the distance to the moon (and that the moon is reflecting sunlight), you can calculate that the moon's surface would have been 1 trillion times brighter than the sun when viewed from the earth. Why are there so few people in academia that point out this obvious fraud?
<ref name=Apollo></ref>
Some people incorrectly state that the inverse square law is only valid for "point sources of light" (like the sun). The moon, however, in the Heliocentric Model is not a point source of light, so they claim the inverse square law of light equation has been misapplied and the numbers are not valid on that basis alone.
They claim that flat earthers do not account for the atmospheric scattering and reflecting of light before it reaches the surface of the earth. There are claims that the moon has no atmosphere, so all the light that hits it, reaches the surface. NASA fan boys claim only about 12% of light that hits it is reflected. For comparison, the Earth reflects about 30% of the light that reaches its surface, and only about 56% of sunlight makes it to the surface.
However one thing to consider, If you make the sun a "point light source" then you have no way to explain the seasons on the earth which requires a directional light source with all rays coming in parallel. A "point light source" is also the same assumption required to determine the distance of the sun and planets in the first instance. They also use this "point light source" assumption to have calculated the radius of the earth in the days of eratosthenes. This doesn't work for eclipses though does it? In these cases they switch back to the "point light source" to explain why the umbra of the eclipse isn't 1000 miles wide. This is what you would expect from a directional light source, unfortunately it just doesn't happen because the sun is not what they are telling you it is.
===References===
<references>
<ref name="SquareLawVideo">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhTPAuK7LQo YouTube: The Square Law (a.k.a. The Inverse Square Law)]</ref>
<ref name="Apollo">[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp_CRRbjPDY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2F&feature=emb_logo YouTube: Inverse Square Law of Light Debunks Apollo Moon Missions]</ref>
</references>
| |||