brad fuller
New Member
My google-fu has let me down on this one, so I'm asking the smarter crowd! I'm familiar with the inverse-square law as it applies to light fall of from a idealised spherical / point source, and I use this info (in practical terms) for flash photography, so I'm good on the basics.
One obvious thing about inverse square law "drop off" is that the initial drop off in light falling on a subject in close proximity to the light is very dramatic as you move away in equal distance increments (as you'd expect)
The second obvious thing is that once you get to a "certain point", the changes in intensity of the light are much more gradual than before (for the same distance step - I'm not referring to successive "doublings" in distance here)
This makes intuitive sense, and also clarifies why the sunlight falling on someone at sea level in Hawaii is essentially the same brightness as the sunlight falling on them on the peak of Mauna Kea (in big picture terms) because the change in distance "to the sun" is microscopically small compared to the distance to the light source.
I say all that to say this: How does the inverse square law line up with flat earth claims of "small and local sun" ?
I don't have the math to work my way backwards (or forwards ) from a "local sun" to know if the inverse square law would have a visible effect? Maybe it's "far enough away" that it's unrealistic of me to invoke it as an argument?
To be clear - I don't mean this as in my sea-level to mountain peak illustration - I mean that over the course of a day, the "small and local" sun has moved, what, 10,000 / 15,000 Ks (?) away from me from noon to sunset?
I get that they will say "of course it gets dimmer, that's why it vanishes" but it seems to me that there is more to unpack here. In that, specifically, why shouldn't there be a very large visible drop in the sunlight by mid-afternoon at least?
Or (alternatively) why does the inverse square law not seem to apply here? (I mean - it would appear that the initial movement of the close sun AWAY from me has little effect on the light falloff, and the later movements of the sun FAR FROM me has a great effect on the light falloff?
I feel that this is too obvious a topic not to have been done to death, so I apologise in advance for bringing it up !!!
Please just link me to where I can "Read The Fine Manual" on this one and I'll get out of your hair!
thanks all
Brad
One obvious thing about inverse square law "drop off" is that the initial drop off in light falling on a subject in close proximity to the light is very dramatic as you move away in equal distance increments (as you'd expect)
The second obvious thing is that once you get to a "certain point", the changes in intensity of the light are much more gradual than before (for the same distance step - I'm not referring to successive "doublings" in distance here)
This makes intuitive sense, and also clarifies why the sunlight falling on someone at sea level in Hawaii is essentially the same brightness as the sunlight falling on them on the peak of Mauna Kea (in big picture terms) because the change in distance "to the sun" is microscopically small compared to the distance to the light source.
I say all that to say this: How does the inverse square law line up with flat earth claims of "small and local sun" ?
I don't have the math to work my way backwards (or forwards ) from a "local sun" to know if the inverse square law would have a visible effect? Maybe it's "far enough away" that it's unrealistic of me to invoke it as an argument?
To be clear - I don't mean this as in my sea-level to mountain peak illustration - I mean that over the course of a day, the "small and local" sun has moved, what, 10,000 / 15,000 Ks (?) away from me from noon to sunset?
I get that they will say "of course it gets dimmer, that's why it vanishes" but it seems to me that there is more to unpack here. In that, specifically, why shouldn't there be a very large visible drop in the sunlight by mid-afternoon at least?
Or (alternatively) why does the inverse square law not seem to apply here? (I mean - it would appear that the initial movement of the close sun AWAY from me has little effect on the light falloff, and the later movements of the sun FAR FROM me has a great effect on the light falloff?
I feel that this is too obvious a topic not to have been done to death, so I apologise in advance for bringing it up !!!
Please just link me to where I can "Read The Fine Manual" on this one and I'll get out of your hair!
thanks all
Brad