Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You are dumb and post dumb things.
It's a holographic projection into the upper atmoplane.
So is the simplest explanation that NASA invented massively complex never before seen technologies to land man to the moon, send robots to mars, and lift 6.7 million pounds of matter (Saturn V) straight up into the atmosphere at extreme speeds, or is the simplest explanation that they didn't?
I have described my position on the subject thoroughly more than once. Goldstein just doesn't seem to get it.
It's a holographic projection into the upper atmoplane.
The Flat Earth:
Rowbotham's experiments have been reproduced.
I don't believe in bendy light.
The stars exert a slight gravitational pull.
What makes you think that the government does a thorough audit of their spending at all? Don't see the news reports about how the military occasionally loses a couple trillion here and there?
How do you know that NASA is audited properly? Some organizations seem to be able to avoid audits all together. For example, since its inception the Federal Reserve has never been audited by congress. If the government can't even keep track of the very organization which makes and distributes the money, what makes you think that they can keep track of how NASA spends the money?
So the only data you guys can manage to present comes from NASA weather satellites?
Where's the math demonstrating that those observations match up with the Round Earth model?
Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
o , o ,
W 90 05, N29 58
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 22, 2008
Central Standard Time
Altitude Azimuth
(E of N)
h m o o
05:00 -11.4 83.2
05:10 -9.2 84.5
05:20 -7.1 85.8
05:30 -4.9 87.1
05:40 -2.8 88.3
05:50 -0.0 89.6
06:00 1.9 90.8
06:10 3.9 92.1
06:20 6.0 93.4
06:30 8.2 94.6
06:40 10.3 95.9
06:50 12.4 97.2
07:00 14.6 98.5
07:10 16.7 99.9
"Sunrise Observed: 0645 ZT (1145 GMT)
Azimuth (Bearing): 089.5?"
Nothing's required unless you assume the Round Earth model as true and then try to model that onto the Flat Earth model, which is an entirely ridiculous exercise. Since the earth is flat it exhibits its own independent daylight times and phenomena.
), so that is a hard line to accept because it doesn't match observations.The burden is on you to prove and demonstrate that the daylight times experienced at various far off and sparsely populated areas of the earth reflect the Round Earth model. You'll have to present some hard data rather than assumptions.
Why should they detect it?
Are there any on a large scale which rotate vertically? If so, please provide a source.
Because not every interferometer rotates about an axis not aligned with the direction in which Dark Energy acts.
They would, if designed to do so. However, there has never to my knowledge been one that has that ability.
That only measures the path of light over fairly short distances, which means that quantum uncertainties are much larger than the effect of the EA and we wouldn't expect to observe any bending.
No, it isn't. Unfortunately, it doesn't agree with the theory of optics you REers seem to be so keen to support, either. I'd take another look at how mirrors work, and then try to answer that question again. Alternatively, I look forward to reading your theory on the reflection of light.
Not every interferometer can distinguish between straight and bendy light.
I am not aware of any experiment that has ever been able to detect the difference between straight and bendy light. So, that point is invalid.
Should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the simplest and easily observable explanation, or should the burden of proof be on the group promoting the most complicated and unobservable explanation?
What would that angle be if the light and the ground were perfectly horizontal, and the mirror it was reflecting off was angled at exactly 45 degrees to the horizontal?
I agree. Would you care to link me to information on such an experiment, or are you just going to claim that they exist without backing up your statement?
Why assume that the Earth is curved and not the light?
So you can't reflect almost horizontal light straight down? Interesting.
Scientific experiments that cannot distinguish between bendy light and straight light usually don't show any evidence for the former.
So you disagree that ships disappear from the bottom up as they sail away over the horizon?
You're assuming a lot of things here. For one, I would imagine a flat dollar/kilometer deal would not work since running cable in the Arctic would be a lot different than running it in the South Pacific. Even within a specific region, there would be great variance in how difficult the run is from one area to the other. Do you have any independent confirmation that companies are paid by the kilometer for work like this?
This is like saying that highway contractors are paid to build new interstates by dollar/mile and therefore should know exactly how much asphalt they use. In reality, the asphalt cost is probably low enough on the list after labor and equipment costs that they're not interested in having it match the estimate exactly. Similarly, I would imagine diesel costs and a 20 man crew would be where most of the expenses are going when laying cable.
And again, where is the actual data where latency measurements were taken and they confirmed the length? Everyone here keeps talking about it but all the links provided are just estimated latencies based on length.
Over distances greater than ten megametres or so, it would be very easily possible to do just that.
I'm sorry, how does this provide any evidence for or against the EA?
Yes, to illustrate that large-scale rules are sometimes different from small-scale ones.
That's where you're wrong. Look up "uncertainty principle".
Working the other way, and using scientific equipment, would produce hidious differences between your equation and observation.
I think you'll find it does. Search for "sinking ship effect", you'll find all the evidence you need.
The principle is the same.
Incorrect.
Please name one.
General Relativity and - as you REers like to call it, "bendy light" - are different theories.
They are not present because the overall beam of light is the sum of many individual photons, each of which will not show measurable bending when its uncertainty in position is greater than the effect of the EA.
You aren't making any sense. Why would I not be able to reflect an almost horizontal light ray a metre or two above the surface of the Earth so that it goes straight down to meet the surface of the Earth?
Probably ten metres or so at least would be required to measure a curve in the path of a light ray. I don't know exactly; I haven't yet done the calculations regarding the quantum effect.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle always applies. The product of the uncertainties in position and momentum for any object must always be greater than or equal to Planck's constant divided by 2π.
QuoteSorry, my mistake. It is only valid for large distances.QuoteI didn't say there were.
From two posts ago...QuoteIn much the same way that General Relativity becomes useless over short distances...
You are now saying that anything less than 10 meters is subject to this "quantum effect" and thus, short distances.QuoteYou fail to realise that because the bendy light effect over a few metres is very tiny, light travelling across a distance of a few metres is still subject to quantum effects. We are talking about the uncertainty in the photons' positions perpendicular to the direction in which they are travelling.
Tiny but measurable. I am not concerned about measuring the position of each individual photon. I am talking about comparing two beams of light that have traveled the same distance following two paths. If these two beams of light don't travel the same distance because of EA, or whatever causes "bendy light", then there will be measurable differences. These are not present.
What makes you think that they won't want the money upfront?
Apparently I'm going to need another analogy. Okay then, here goes:
Consider the "sinking ship" effect. According to FET+EA, light bends up to allow light with an initial downward trajectory reflecting off the ship to reach the eye of the observer. Thus, bendy light has caused light to bend away from the Earth. Are you telling me that there is no orientation at which a mirror may be held that will reflect this light to meet the ground?
The distance of metres isn't the small scale, what is small scale is the change in position and momentum of the photon perpendicular to its initial momentum vector. That equation only applies over large distances; I will see if I can come up with some mathematics based on the uncertainty principle to illustrate why the uncertainty in position and momentum is always greater than the effect of bendy light - and therefore unobservable - over short distances.
It would, if that equation were valid over large distances.
That equation only applies over large distances
In much the same way that General Relativity becomes useless over short distances and Quantum Mechanics over large ones, that equation is only valid when the quantum uncertainty in the position and momentum of photons is significantly less than the change in position and momentum caused by the bending of light.
No. The recent emergence of the quantum effects in the bendy light theory have made it substantially more difficult to come up with something.
That's like saying it's not possible for a lamp shining straight down on a piece of paper to illuminate it to an observer looking at it from a 45-degree angle.
Light doesn't bend on small scales, only large ones. This is due to quantum uncertainties in the positions of the photons; when the uncertainty is greater than the bending effect, no bending is observed.
The Moon is not a retroreflector.
Once again just for those in the cheap seats. Light doesn't bend as required by FE'ers.
.svg)
It's the inverse of the radius of the Earth in RET, which is necessary for nobody to notice any difference between RET and FET+EA over short (less than a few thousand kilometres) distances.
Q: Why do you believe the earth is flat?
A: Well, it looks flat. As zeteticists we believe in trusting our own senses, even if it's in direct opposition to what those in authority tell us. Not only do we have no reason for believing that the earth is round, we have solid evidence that it is not so.
Q: What does the flat earth look like?
A: The flat earth is laid out like the emblem on the United Nations flag:
The north pole is at the center of the disk and the ice wall (see below) surrounds the outside. Going due northward brings you to the center of the earth, and going due southward brings you to the rim.
Q: What is the circumference and diameter of the earth?
A: We estimate the circumference to be around 78,225 miles and the diameter to be 24,900 miles.
Q: What is the ice wall?
A: It is a large mountain range covered with ice that surrounds the flat earth. It is believed to hold in the oceans. It rises in several places 150 feet above sea level and may rise higher in places. On a round earth map it would correspond to the coast of Antarctica. There is also a theoretical ice wall that may lie further outland that some believe to rise as high as 50,000 to 100,000 feet and it is believed by some that that is what holds in the atmosphere. However, since it's never been observed, some feel that there's no reason to believe in the existence of the so-called "greater ice wall".
Q: What lies beyond the ice wall?
A: All that we know to lie beyond the ice wall is a seemingly endless plain of ice. The true magnitude of the earth beyond the ice wall may never be known and some theorize that it stretches forever, an infinite plain of icy tundra. Others feel it is more reasonable that the plane of the earth has an edge, possibly bounded by the greater ice wall. Rowbotham was a bit ambiguous on the point.
Q: Then what causes us to be attracted to the surface of the earth?
A: It is our contention that the disk is actually accelerating upwards at a constant rate of 9.8m/s/s, thus producing the phenomenon you refer to as gravity. We call this universal acceleration and the mechanism is dubbed the universal accelerator, or UA.
Q: What about tides then?
A: Precisely what causes the tides is unknown, although it is theorized by some that the heavenly bodies do exert a slight gravitational pull. One explanation, therefore, is that the moon is causing the tides, with an accompanying body we call the anti-moon located underneath the disk of the earth balancing out the effect we observe. Others feel that the earth simply tips back and forth, thus causing tides.
Q: How does a compass work if the earth is flat?
A: The earth's magnetic field is generated the same way in FE as in RE. So the magnetic north pole is near the geographic north pole, as on RE. The magnetic south pole is located on the underside of the earth. The ice wall acts as a magnetic south pole because it is the furthest from the center that you can follow the magnetic field. The field line is vertical in this area.
Q: Do you have a map?
A: Unfortunately, nothing reliable...
Q: How do sunsets happen?
A: It's a perspective effect, combined with atmospheric refraction. Obviously the sun isn't literally dipping below the horizon as it's not revolving around the earth. Actually as the sun gets closer to the horizon its observed position differs slightly from its actual position, until it is far enough away that it appears the sun actually sets into the earth at the horizon line. In reality it's just an optical illusion.
Q: Why would there be a horizon if the earth is flat? Shouldn't the surface just extend out to the end of the earth?
A: Actually there would be a horizon even if the earth was infinite. Its existence has little to do with the supposed curvature of the earth and its position wouldn't be significantly different one way or another.
