Computer Based FE Model Using the Gleason Map

I've used this in responses to other members here but believe it is deserving of it's own thread:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model

The link is to a FE model of Earth, reflective of how light would need to behave in order for what we see everyday to work if the world was flat.  It has a number of sliders so you can play with dates/times along with showing how eclipses would work. 

I curious what the FE crowd thinks of this project.

No opinions?  Wow.  I thought there'd be someone that might find this neat.  It provides a working model of how light would necessarily need to behave in order to prove all the stuff claimed by the various FE theories floating around.  Using this model, a good FE scientist would only need to determine what sort of elements in our atmosphere (or atmoplane) could cause this sort of distortion.  The heavy lifting is done, folks! 

No opinions?  Wow.  I thought there'd be someone that might find this neat.  It provides a working model of how light would necessarily need to behave in order to prove all the stuff claimed by the various FE theories floating around.  Using this model, a good FE scientist would only need to determine what sort of elements in our atmosphere (or atmoplane) could cause this sort of distortion.  The heavy lifting is done, folks!

Then give yourself a round of applause and accept that you found one reason why this flat Earth fits.

It may not be correct but then again it's all about hypotheses to try and make sense of the Earth against the absolute nonsense of the global model that has been shoehorned like crazy to fit observations.

And people believe that, even after they've had time to analyse it all to see the monstrous stuff required for it to supposedly work.

Then give yourself a round of applause and accept that you found one reason why this flat Earth fits.

You seem to have completely missed the point.
The model is meant to show what is required to force a FE to fit the observations.
What is lacking is the reason why light does this.

And people believe that, even after they've had time to analyse it all to see the monstrous stuff required for it to supposedly work.

Yes, for some reason, people still believe the FE nonsense, even after seeing just what nonsense is required to prop it up.

Then give yourself a round of applause and accept that you found one reason why this flat Earth fits.

Thanks for missing the point entirely, scepti.  The model shows how light would need to behave in order for all the wacky stuff you guys say happens to be true.  The next step would be figuring out why light is observed to behave that way; quick hint, it doesn't. 

It may not be correct but then again it's all about hypotheses to try and make sense of the Earth against the absolute nonsense of the global model that has been shoehorned like crazy to fit observations.

Reproducible, predictable, accurate - are all words used to describe the current model of reality.  That model, by the way, isn't one where planet Earth is a gigantic ice-walled frisbee spinning like a vinyl record on the back of a turtle.

And people believe that, even after they've had time to analyse it all to see the monstrous stuff required for it to supposedly work.

As we've gone over, repeatedly, major systems of global commerce, the world's various militaries, and a countless number of systems we all use were developed on a round, spherical Earth.  It isn't that they've been duped.  It isn't a conspiracy.  It's the world we actually live on. 

See how scepti's claims of nonsense get used without any mention of what that nonsense is?  If he tells you what thing he doesn't understand he will refuse any explanation to help him understand.  He doesn't want answers, he wants to argue.  Therefore vague responses, full of nuh uhh, my conspiracy, etc are his only recourse.  He is brainwashed.  He needs think he is the rebel, the hero in his own mind to make him feel proud of himself.

Gleason vs mercator.
Scepti dodged this one already.
Hes LA dodger home run hitter mvp.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2021, 10:43:09 PM

Then give yourself a round of applause and accept that you found one reason why this flat Earth fits.

Thanks for missing the point entirely, scepti.  The model shows how light would need to behave in order for all the wacky stuff you guys say happens to be true.  The next step would be figuring out why light is observed to behave that way; quick hint, it doesn't. 

I haven't missed any point.

You're showing this up as one thing whilst not getting it into your head how massively shoehorned the global system is and the silly ways it gets told to us how it supposedly works.

Spinning on a 23.5 degree axis for some reason.
Wobbling for some reason.
Going around a big ball of fire in a vacuum for some reason.
And so on and so on and so on....but this is all logical...right?
Pffffffftttttttt.

I haven't missed any point.

So you are just choosing to dishonestly present it?

You're showing this up as one thing whilst not getting it into your head how massively shoehorned the global system is and the silly ways it gets told to us how it supposedly works.

You mean how it so simply works, with you unable to show any fault?

Spinning on a 23.5 degree axis for some reason.

Conservation of angular momentum.
All that is stating is that it is not perfectly aligned.
It is going to be some angle, even if that angle is 0.
It is 23.5 degrees because that is what is observed with the sun.
This actually explains the seasons quite well, and the illumination during them.
Unlike the FE model, which has no explanation.

Wobbling for some reason.

Due to the observed shifting of the tectonic plates disrupting the axis of rotation, and well known precession, which can even be physically demonstrated on Earth with spinning tops.

Going around a big ball of fire in a vacuum for some reason.

Due to gravity, a quite well known phenomenon, backed up by mountains of physical evidence which you choose to dismiss.

There is no shoe-horning at all.

Conversely, for the FE, you have the sun producing a magical spotlight which moves around and changes shape for no reason at all, with the sun magically moving for no reason at all, with things falling to Earth for no reason at all, with the rate of acceleration varying around Earth for no reason at all.

Again, what you are accusing the RE of, is actually true of the FE.
The FE is the one which completely lacks any reason.
But because you love the FE and have an irrational hatred of the RE, you project all the inadequacies of the FE onto the RE.

I haven't missed any point.

You have and still are missing the point scepti.  This post's purpose is to present a computer model of FE that demonstrates how light would necessarily need to behave in order for FE's claims to be valid.  I asked what you folks think of it and you immediately go into attack mode.  I find that odd because this model provides a working system reflecting exactly what you all have been trying to explain for years; how to explain where it all moves about in the sky.  Now, to be clear, it does absolutely nothing to explain why any of it is happening. 

You're showing this up as one thing whilst not getting it into your head how massively shoehorned the global system is and the silly ways it gets told to us how it supposedly works.

What does this have to do with the original post?

Spinning on a 23.5 degree axis for some reason.
Wobbling for some reason.
Going around a big ball of fire in a vacuum for some reason.
And so on and so on and so on....but this is all logical...right?
Pffffffftttttttt.

And I covered this interestingly unique behavior in another post.  When a true FE'er is faced with actually having to stand their ground and explain something, potentially giving up the game, they deflect, redirect, ignore, and evade.  Good show scepti, good show.  True to form.

Quote from: Gumwars on June 16, 2021, 12:10:54 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 15, 2021, 10:43:09 PM

Then give yourself a round of applause and accept that you found one reason why this flat Earth fits.

Thanks for missing the point entirely, scepti.  The model shows how light would need to behave in order for all the wacky stuff you guys say happens to be true.  The next step would be figuring out why light is observed to behave that way; quick hint, it doesn't. 

I haven't missed any point.

You're showing this up as one thing whilst not getting it into your head how massively shoehorned the global system is and the silly ways it gets told to us how it supposedly works.

Spinning on a 23.5 degree axis for some reason.
Wobbling for some reason.
Going around a big ball of fire in a vacuum for some reason.
And so on and so on and so on....but this is all logical...right?
Pffffffftttttttt.

More logical than your unsupported ideas that don't even match what we can see.

You're not getting it into your head how massively shoehorned the flat earth system is and the silly ways it gets told to us how it supposedly works.

A flat disk instead of a round sphere like all the other planets we observe for some reason.
Things fall down on earth but teh sun, moon and everything else stays up for some reason.
The sun sure looks like it goes below the horizon but you say it doesn't for some reason.
If you travel too far away you can't see the sun anymore even though it's still up there for some reason.
None of your maps show the actual distances between cities for some reason.
Nobody has ever flown up and looked down at the sun from above it even though it's really close for some reason.
The Bishop Constant is unknown for some reason.
The world has an edge for some reason.
There is a dome, or there isn't a dome but for some reason you guys can't figure it out.
There are things that look like stars and planets out there but for some reason you have no idea what they are.
GPS and other satellites stay up there for some reason.
Nobody has ever seen the edge for some reason.
Nobody has been to the dome for some reason.
Light does some magic bendy stuff that nobody can explain for some reason.
Ships sink below the flat horizon for some reason.
And so on and so on and so on....but this is all logical...right?
Pffffffftttttttt.

You not being able to comprehend how the world works doesn't mean the world is wrong, it means you are.

Going to be interested in reading through that in more detail, but you do very much seem to be missing the point sceptimatic is making. There is a tendency among round earthers to view a flat earth as just kicking out a ball and putting a disc in its place - both gumwars and that article have, for example, pressed the notion of a flat earth being geocentric, which is simply false as the earth is not at the center of the system. Other users in this thread continue this kind of thinking, making the assumption that anything outside of the bounds of the round earth mainstream is unjustified and false.
Doing this isn't going to give you understanding, nor will it mean you make any point about flat earth theory. We reject a great majority of what you take as sacrosanct, and we do not view it as justified - and I'd happily discuss that in other threads (and have done so), and the arguments round earthers reply with simply do not impress.

Trying to figure out how a flat earth would 'work' in such intricate detail when the only sliders are the most bare-bones of basic concessions and the rest of a round earth view is taken as given is a purely masturbatory gesture. You aren't looking at a flat earth, you're looking at a frankenstein's round earth.
I would recommend reading the comments on that page. They demonstrate someone who isn't interest in actually offering comparison or a model for a flat earth, and actively goes out of his way to reject even considering alternations. Requests were made for other features that could be added and toggled to better analyze, and he refuses, because this isn't about 'providing a working model of light on a flat earth,' and this isn't about what would be required for a flat earth to work. It is a purely useless gesture made by a round earther who wants to claim to have refuted flat earth theory, but doesn't want to put in the leg-work required to even begin.

If this was actually as you claimed, one would expect to see, at the very least, more than one variable with the very ambiguous name of 'rayparam' governing the curvature of light.

snomo's back!

fine
forget biases and whatever nonsense complaints you had and provide a model!
how about providing a reasoning, any reasoning that justifies the existence of the mercator projection.
any?
is mercator allowed to exist in the flat earth?

Going to be interested in reading through that in more detail, but you do very much seem to be missing the point sceptimatic is making. There is a tendency among round earthers to view a flat earth as just kicking out a ball and putting a disc in its place - both gumwars and that article have, for example, pressed the notion of a flat earth being geocentric, which is simply false as the earth is not at the center of the system. Other users in this thread continue this kind of thinking, making the assumption that anything outside of the bounds of the round earth mainstream is unjustified and false.
Doing this isn't going to give you understanding, nor will it mean you make any point about flat earth theory. We reject a great majority of what you take as sacrosanct, and we do not view it as justified - and I'd happily discuss that in other threads (and have done so), and the arguments round earthers reply with simply do not impress.

Trying to figure out how a flat earth would 'work' in such intricate detail when the only sliders are the most bare-bones of basic concessions and the rest of a round earth view is taken as given is a purely masturbatory gesture. You aren't looking at a flat earth, you're looking at a frankenstein's round earth.
I would recommend reading the comments on that page. They demonstrate someone who isn't interest in actually offering comparison or a model for a flat earth, and actively goes out of his way to reject even considering alternations. Requests were made for other features that could be added and toggled to better analyze, and he refuses, because this isn't about 'providing a working model of light on a flat earth,' and this isn't about what would be required for a flat earth to work. It is a purely useless gesture made by a round earther who wants to claim to have refuted flat earth theory, but doesn't want to put in the leg-work required to even begin.

If this was actually as you claimed, one would expect to see, at the very least, more than one variable with the very ambiguous name of 'rayparam' governing the curvature of light.

The FE isn't the center of the system?  Interesting claim, completely different than the vast majority of FE claims. 
The FE isn't a disc shape, ok I've seen some that were not, but again the vast majority of FE claims are. 
The model presented on that page, goes miles further at attempting to provide a model of what is claimed by FE cult members than any 9f the little FE sheep have ever done.
Your response trying to "analyze" is nothing more than troll deflection and the ramblings of someone who desperately wants people to think they are more intelligent than they actually are.  I usually just skip over your posts as they are useless, this one is no different, but I was bored. 

The FE isn't the center of the system?  Interesting claim, completely different than the vast majority of FE claims. 

What FE people have you been talking to where the sun and stars rotate around the earth as opposed to a point above the earth's surface? That is, after all, the meaning of geocentrism.

The FE isn't a disc shape, ok I've seen some that were not, but again the vast majority of FE claims are. 
The model presented on that page, goes miles further at attempting to provide a model of what is claimed by FE cult members than any 9f the little FE sheep have ever done.
Your response trying to "analyze" is nothing more than troll deflection and the ramblings of someone who desperately wants people to think they are more intelligent than they actually are.  I usually just skip over your posts as they are useless, this one is no different, but I was bored.

He does not attempt to provide a model, he actively backs down from doing so and refuses to consider alternatives for no good reason.
Have fun with petty attacks though. You accuse me of rambling, and still fail to engage with a word of what I say.

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

Are you going to make empty demands, or are you going to respond to anything I said?

You seem to be under the delusion I am some kind of performing animal.

respond to what?
what requires responding?  - you whined about how some guy wasn't fair and was biased but without making exact claims or counterpoints.
so you, yourself, didn't respond and merely waved it away like you've done other times.
so what should i respond to?
do we continue the useless debate about bias again?

or we can move on.
if the base analysis is tainted of bias, provide us a model or further insight that we can work with.
in this case the discussion at hand is gleason.
is gleason's projection valid representation of the known world?
if not, why not?
or should we be looking to mercator?
what maps should we be using?

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 18, 2021, 11:13:51 AM

The FE isn't the center of the system?  Interesting claim, completely different than the vast majority of FE claims. 

What FE people have you been talking to where the sun and stars rotate around the earth as opposed to a point above the earth's surface? That is, after all, the meaning of geocentrism.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "where the sun and stars rotate around the earth as opposed to a point above the earth's surface". The Bilsin model is very much what I've seen as the vast majority of FEr's idea of an FE model:

- Disc, north pole centered, Antartica as a ring around
- Sun and moon are approximately 3000' high, 32 miles in diameter, and they revolve above a stationary disc
- The Sun, by revolving above the disc, illuminates half of said disc

There are other FE models for sure. But you'll find on YouTube and reddit, the FE conferences, where the vast majority of FEr's congregate and participate, that the model above and what Bilsin demonstrates is the majority FE model.

Is a point above the earth's surface something different than revolving above a stationary disc?

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2021, 12:31:00 PM

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

Are you going to make empty demands, or are you going to respond to anything I said?

You seem to be under the delusion I am some kind of performing animal.

Not really an empty demand to ask what you think the map of the world would look like.

If you don’t like this model, can’t you say what model you do like?

Going to be interested in reading through that in more detail, but you do very much seem to be missing the point sceptimatic is making. There is a tendency among round earthers to view a flat earth as just kicking out a ball and putting a disc in its place - both gumwars and that article have, for example, pressed the notion of a flat earth being geocentric, which is simply false as the earth is not at the center of the system. Other users in this thread continue this kind of thinking, making the assumption that anything outside of the bounds of the round earth mainstream is unjustified and false.
Doing this isn't going to give you understanding, nor will it mean you make any point about flat earth theory. We reject a great majority of what you take as sacrosanct, and we do not view it as justified - and I'd happily discuss that in other threads (and have done so), and the arguments round earthers reply with simply do not impress.

Trying to figure out how a flat earth would 'work' in such intricate detail when the only sliders are the most bare-bones of basic concessions and the rest of a round earth view is taken as given is a purely masturbatory gesture. You aren't looking at a flat earth, you're looking at a frankenstein's round earth.
I would recommend reading the comments on that page. They demonstrate someone who isn't interest in actually offering comparison or a model for a flat earth, and actively goes out of his way to reject even considering alternations. Requests were made for other features that could be added and toggled to better analyze, and he refuses, because this isn't about 'providing a working model of light on a flat earth,' and this isn't about what would be required for a flat earth to work. It is a purely useless gesture made by a round earther who wants to claim to have refuted flat earth theory, but doesn't want to put in the leg-work required to even begin.

If this was actually as you claimed, one would expect to see, at the very least, more than one variable with the very ambiguous name of 'rayparam' governing the curvature of light.

Educate us.  What's the correct model Snomial?  You may want to check the TFES wiki first, you may need to ask for a new entry.

Going to be interested in reading through that in more detail, but you do very much seem to be missing the point sceptimatic is making.

No, we very much see the point.
He wants to pretend Earth is flat, while ignoring all the problems with it.

There is a tendency among round earthers to view a flat earth as just kicking out a ball and putting a disc in its place

Likely because there is a tendency among FEers to just kick out the RE and put a disk in its place along with whatever magic is necessary to pretend it fits, and then pretend that any evidence showing it is wrong is just RE propaganda.

pressed the notion of a flat earth being geocentric, which is simply false as the earth is not at the center of the system

No, it hasn't.
Instead the article contrasts the FE dome model with the HC model of the solar system.

making the assumption that anything outside of the bounds of the round earth mainstream is unjustified and false.

No, instead they are concluding that things that need to invoke light bending for no apparent reason to make the Earth appear round is almost certainly false.

It has nothing at all to do with if it is outside the bounds of the RE or the mainstream.
Instead it is that the mainstream model IS justified.
The FE model is not.

and I'd happily discuss that in other threads (and have done so)

Until you couldn't justify your position and had to continually change arguments before eventually fleeing the thread.

Trying to figure out how a flat earth would 'work' in such intricate detail when the only sliders are the most bare-bones of basic concessions and the rest of a round earth view is taken as given is a purely masturbatory gesture.

You are confusing the RE model which accurately matches and describes reality, with the observations from reality.
It is not simply taking as given that those aspects of the RE model are correct.
Instead it just isn't rejecting all the evidence that shows FE is wrong.

I would recommend reading the comments on that page.

Sure, the wonderful comments like:
"The Earth has already been irrefutably proven to be flat and stationary. The smart phone in your pocket provides proof by itself. So any phenomena must be put in context of a flat, stationary Earth."
This truly shows the mindset of so many FEers.
They already have their conclusion, that Earth is flat. Anything else must be forced to fit this false idea. If evidence shows that Earth is not flat, the evidence must be wrong. And so on.

And how do they justify their bold faced lie?
Well, if you put your phone on a level table and calibrate it, and then drive some distance and put it on another level table, it shows the angle as 0.
What he ignores is what that is a measurement of and what the results would be on a RE, which match the claimed observation.

And how does another respond?
"Jason, you are arguing with someone who is still naive enough to believe the moon landings were real"

And there are plenty more there showing a similar mentality.

So yes, reading the comments are great to see the FE mentality of thinking Earth must be flat and trying to force everything into that, rather than honestly examining the evidence, and honestly thinking about what is required to get a FE to produce the observations of this real Earth.

Requests were made for other features that could be added and toggled to better analyze, and he refuses

So what was this:
"Jason, I already implemented your suggestions, see options RayTarget = FlatEarth and RaySource. Check out all Demos (click the buttons above the App), the new features are incorporated into the Demos."
It sure seems like they incorporated at least some of those features.

Now instead of just attacking REers and the model provided, can you try to justify the FE at all? Can you explain what causes light to bend the way it does to make a FE appear round?

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 18, 2021, 11:13:51 AM

The FE isn't the center of the system?  Interesting claim, completely different than the vast majority of FE claims. 

What FE people have you been talking to where the sun and stars rotate around the earth as opposed to a point above the earth's surface? That is, after all, the meaning of geocentrism.

Quote from: Mikey T. on June 18, 2021, 11:13:51 AM

The FE isn't a disc shape, ok I've seen some that were not, but again the vast majority of FE claims are. 
The model presented on that page, goes miles further at attempting to provide a model of what is claimed by FE cult members than any 9f the little FE sheep have ever done.
Your response trying to "analyze" is nothing more than troll deflection and the ramblings of someone who desperately wants people to think they are more intelligent than they actually are.  I usually just skip over your posts as they are useless, this one is no different, but I was bored.

He does not attempt to provide a model, he actively backs down from doing so and refuses to consider alternatives for no good reason.
Have fun with petty attacks though. You accuse me of rambling, and still fail to engage with a word of what I say.

So a point roughly 3000 miles above the North pole about everything rotates around while the Earth remains stationary is not everything revolving around a stationary Flat Earth.  Sure. 
As for the petty insults, you have proven, many many times that your posts are full of nothing.  They are just basic troll tactics just to argue.  You use words and phrases in a way that proves you have no idea what they truly mean.  If you think your constant claims that anyone your little troll FE alter-ego disagree with is using information they feel to be "sacrosanct", even if it is personal experience, isn't insulting then I am not sure how you are so blind.  You will get what you give with me.  Even though I throw shit at Scepti, I respect him way more than I do you.   
Interesting that a direct response to things you say is a failure to address a word of what you say.  More bullshit and intentionally argumentative.

Quote from: Gumwars on June 15, 2021, 11:06:25 AM

No opinions?  Wow.  I thought there'd be someone that might find this neat.  It provides a working model of how light would necessarily need to behave in order to prove all the stuff claimed by the various FE theories floating around.  Using this model, a good FE scientist would only need to determine what sort of elements in our atmosphere (or atmoplane) could cause this sort of distortion.  The heavy lifting is done, folks!

Then give yourself a round of applause and accept that you found one reason why this flat Earth fits.

It may not be correct but then again it's all about hypotheses to try and make sense of the Earth against the absolute nonsense of the global model that has been shoehorned like crazy to fit observations.

And people believe that, even after they've had time to analyse it all to see the monstrous stuff required for it to supposedly work.

You know as well as I do that the whole notion of a flat earth map is an impossibility. Why? All our current maps which have come about via exhaustive surveys that have since been refined by satellite data work, no one gets lost. I’m just in the middle of a long trip to the far north. All the islands I visited were all in their proper place as were all the town and villages I visited.

Have you or anyone else come across a map that is incorrect? Let’s remember for a flat earth map to be possible all our current maps would have to be wrong, and as we all know that is not the case.

If you care to do some long distance travel all the towns, cities, lakes, oceans, forests etc are all located where they should be. If that’s the case then our maps must be correct. It therefore follows that if our current maps are correct where does that leave flat earth maps?

I’ll answer that by saying in cloud cuckoo land.

Is a point above the earth's surface something different than revolving above a stationary disc?

No, they're the same thing. Is the center of rotation of revolving above a stationary disc the Earth? I would love to see the geometry on that.

Quote from: snomial on June 18, 2021, 12:48:34 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2021, 12:31:00 PM

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

Are you going to make empty demands, or are you going to respond to anything I said?

You seem to be under the delusion I am some kind of performing animal.

Not really an empty demand to ask what you think the map of the world would look like.

If you don’t like this model, can’t you say what model you do like?

And if that was the question that was asked, I wouldn't have a problem. Rather than engage with a criticism of the link's assumptions, however, he decides to make it all about a map, something very far removed from what I was talking about and the objections I was making. It is something of a trend with him - when he cannot discuss a topic, he tries to shift it to something he presumably thinks he can make a point in, even when it is totally irrelevant.
The path of light curves when the medium it is travelling through changes. This medium could be either the air it passes through, or it could be the ether that carries it. The curve is not something that can be parameterized with one variable as it needs to account for both. That would be the simplest issue to make.

So a point roughly 3000 miles above the North pole about everything rotates around while the Earth remains stationary is not everything revolving around a stationary Flat Earth.  Sure. 

Um. Yes. Rotating around a point in the sky is not rotating around the Earth. Is the heliocentric system actually random-point-in-space-significantly-below-the-sun-centric?

As for the petty insults, you have proven, many many times that your posts are full of nothing.  They are just basic troll tactics just to argue.  You use words and phrases in a way that proves you have no idea what they truly mean.  If you think your constant claims that anyone your little troll FE alter-ego disagree with is using information they feel to be "sacrosanct", even if it is personal experience, isn't insulting then I am not sure how you are so blind.  You will get what you give with me.  Even though I throw shit at Scepti, I respect him way more than I do you.   
Interesting that a direct response to things you say is a failure to address a word of what you say.  More bullshit and intentionally argumentative.

So the person dedicating 2/3 of their post to personal attacks with the good old classic 'you're doing what you said I was!' and the other 1/3 to a genuinely inexplicable bit of incredulity thinks I'm a troll. I will definitely trust your judgement of that.

Third time asking snomial, what's the correct model?

Third time asking snomial, what's the correct model?

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 18, 2021, 01:53:10 PM

Quote from: snomial on June 18, 2021, 12:48:34 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2021, 12:31:00 PM

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

Are you going to make empty demands, or are you going to respond to anything I said?

You seem to be under the delusion I am some kind of performing animal.

Not really an empty demand to ask what you think the map of the world would look like.

If you don’t like this model, can’t you say what model you do like?

And if that was the question that was asked, I wouldn't have a problem. Rather than engage with a criticism of the link's assumptions, however, he decides to make it all about a map, something very far removed from what I was talking about and the objections I was making. It is something of a trend with him - when he cannot discuss a topic, he tries to shift it to something he presumably thinks he can make a point in, even when it is totally irrelevant.
The path of light curves when the medium it is travelling through changes. This medium could be either the air it passes through, or it could be the ether that carries it. The curve is not something that can be parameterized with one variable as it needs to account for both. That would be the simplest issue to make.

Next time, save us both the trouble and just don't bother posting. You clearly don't care about what I say. This is getting to be a habit with you.

Snomo is challenging sceppy for dodgeball champion of the FE.

Quote from: Gumwars on June 19, 2021, 05:19:11 AM

Third time asking snomial, what's the correct model?

Quote from: snomial on June 19, 2021, 03:29:52 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 18, 2021, 01:53:10 PM

Quote from: snomial on June 18, 2021, 12:48:34 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2021, 12:31:00 PM

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

Are you going to make empty demands, or are you going to respond to anything I said?

You seem to be under the delusion I am some kind of performing animal.

Not really an empty demand to ask what you think the map of the world would look like.

If you don’t like this model, can’t you say what model you do like?

And if that was the question that was asked, I wouldn't have a problem. Rather than engage with a criticism of the link's assumptions, however, he decides to make it all about a map, something very far removed from what I was talking about and the objections I was making. It is something of a trend with him - when he cannot discuss a topic, he tries to shift it to something he presumably thinks he can make a point in, even when it is totally irrelevant.
The path of light curves when the medium it is travelling through changes. This medium could be either the air it passes through, or it could be the ether that carries it. The curve is not something that can be parameterized with one variable as it needs to account for both. That would be the simplest issue to make.

Next time, save us both the trouble and just don't bother posting. You clearly don't care about what I say. This is getting to be a habit with you.

How hard is it to get a straight answer from you?  The TFES Wiki, and a majority of FE agree that the Gleason map is correct.  This guy built a model using that as a starting point and produced a working program that solves how light would need to behave in order for it to work.  If you don't think that map is correct, fine.  Then please point me to what you think is correct.  If you think the map is correct and the assumptions are flawed, what assumptions are flawed and why?  You mention ether, which is a whole other avenue to explore, but you don't provide anything specific.

What's habitual is your inability to provide answers to simple questions.  For the record, one last time, what's the issue here snomial?  What is wrong with this computer-based, flat Earth model?

Quote from: snomial on June 19, 2021, 05:20:57 AM

Quote from: Gumwars on June 19, 2021, 05:19:11 AM

Third time asking snomial, what's the correct model?

Quote from: snomial on June 19, 2021, 03:29:52 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on June 18, 2021, 01:53:10 PM

Quote from: snomial on June 18, 2021, 12:48:34 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on June 18, 2021, 12:31:00 PM

you use a lot of words without actually saying anything.

so gleason is not a practical model or not?

Are you going to make empty demands, or are you going to respond to anything I said?

You seem to be under the delusion I am some kind of performing animal.

Not really an empty demand to ask what you think the map of the world would look like.

If you don’t like this model, can’t you say what model you do like?

And if that was the question that was asked, I wouldn't have a problem. Rather than engage with a criticism of the link's assumptions, however, he decides to make it all about a map, something very far removed from what I was talking about and the objections I was making. It is something of a trend with him - when he cannot discuss a topic, he tries to shift it to something he presumably thinks he can make a point in, even when it is totally irrelevant.
The path of light curves when the medium it is travelling through changes. This medium could be either the air it passes through, or it could be the ether that carries it. The curve is not something that can be parameterized with one variable as it needs to account for both. That would be the simplest issue to make.

Next time, save us both the trouble and just don't bother posting. You clearly don't care about what I say. This is getting to be a habit with you.

How hard is it to get a straight answer from you?  The TFES Wiki, and a majority of FE agree that the Gleason map is correct.  This guy built a model using that as a starting point and produced a working program that solves how light would need to behave in order for it to work.  If you don't think that map is correct, fine.  Then please point me to what you think is correct.  If you think the map is correct and the assumptions are flawed, what assumptions are flawed and why?  You mention ether, which is a whole other avenue to explore, but you don't provide anything specific.

What's habitual is your inability to provide answers to simple questions.  For the record, one last time, what's the issue here snomial?  What is wrong with this computer-based, flat Earth model?

What? Why are you now talking about the map? You're the only people who've been obsessing with that.
Consider that I am providing the answers, you just don't want to see them.

Again, what is wrong with it:

The path of light curves when the medium it is travelling through changes. This medium could be either the air it passes through, or it could be the ether that carries it. The curve is not something that can be parameterized with one variable as it needs to account for both. That would be the simplest issue to make.