The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: EnglshGentleman on January 16, 2010, 10:18:20 PM
-
Could it also be added that the Bendy Light Theory has been debunked? I recall it died in the Night/Day topic since a person at altitude would end up thinking its day while a person below them would think its night.
-
Could it also be added that the Bendy Light Theory has been debunked? I recall it died in the Night/Day topic since a person at altitude would end up thinking its day while a person below them would think its night.
What do you mean "a person at altitude would end up thinking its day"? The sun does set sooner for those lower down than those higher up. You can easily see this by watching a mountain at sunset - the summit will still be in sunlight when its after sunset at the base. I have personally witnessed this, most memorably watching El Capitan in Yosemite. Here's a picture:
(http://www.scottborger.com/images/large/_MG_6852.jpg)
If this phenomenon is predicted by the FE model, then that's a strength, not a weakness.
-
Could it also be added that the Bendy Light Theory has been debunked? I recall it died in the Night/Day topic since a person at altitude would end up thinking its day while a person below them would think its night.
What do you mean "a person at altitude would end up thinking its day"? The sun does set sooner for those lower down than those higher up. You can easily see this by watching a mountain at sunset - the summit will still be in sunlight when its after sunset at the base. I have personally witnessed this, most memorably watching El Capitan in Yosemite. Here's a picture:
(http://www.scottborger.com/images/large/_MG_6852.jpg)
If this phenomenon is predicted by the FE model, then that's a strength, not a weakness.
You missed the part were you would see light at a certain altitude (while it is dark below), but if you went higher, you would then lose the light. Do you want me to show you the graph that depicts this?
-
You missed the part were you would see light at a certain altitude (while it is dark below), but if you went higher, you would then lose the light. Do you want me to show you the graph that depicts this?
Could you link the thread in question? I tried searching for it, but there are about a million threads titled night/day.
-
I think you're misunderstanding how that diagram debunks bendy light. It works by showing how at altitude you'd see the sun appearing to come from a position on the ground, so a setting sun seen from thousands of feet in the air would be partially superimposed over ground terrain.
-
I think you're misunderstanding how that diagram debunks bendy light. It works by showing how at altitude you'd see the sun appearing to come from a position on the ground, so a setting sun seen from thousands of feet in the air would be partially superimposed over ground terrain.
It also fails to work by showing a misunderstanding of the idea behind bendy light.
-
Parsifal just make your point. Don't just say you are wrong and wait for us to ask how so?
-
SBR performed experiments...
Nope. He performed flawed experiments when could never be repeated. When he wasn't being chased out of town he also sold snake oil and other quakc fixes.
A few gullible people gave him some attention. In that respect not much has changed.
-
Parsifal just make your point. Don't just say you are wrong and wait for us to ask how so?
I have made my point when the diagram was first posted. Euclid supported me in it.
-
Parsifal just make your point. Don't just say you are wrong and wait for us to ask how so?
I have made my point when the diagram was first posted. Euclid supported me in it.
Your point was to nitpick about the scale of the diagram. Euclid didn't even understand the diagram.
Anyway, I've satisfied most people on the forum who have their brains switched on that bendy light is a fallacy. We all know you don't really believe it anyway as you have admitted the earth is not flat. If you can supply some experimental evidence of light being bendy without reference to the surface of the earth then go ahead. You won't be able to do it of course, whereas we can supply a shedload of evidence that light travels in straight lines without bending, and we can do it without using the earth's surface as a reference measure.
As I have often said, my mission is not to try to convert those who won't listen or switch their brains on. It's to make sure anyone who has not decided between a flat or round earth realise how pathetically weak the FE arguments are.
-
Your point was to nitpick about the scale of the diagram. Euclid didn't even understand the diagram.
No, after that point I quite reasonably pointed out that a ray from the Sun appearing to come from the ground would need to follow the same path as a ray from the ground itself, meaning that the sunlight would be bending through the ground. So either you are suggesting that the Earth is transparent, or this phenomenon would not be observed.
We all know you don't really believe it anyway as you have admitted the earth is not flat.
No, what I said is that I don't believe the Earth to be flat.
If you can supply some experimental evidence of light being bendy without reference to the surface of the earth then go ahead. You won't be able to do it of course, whereas we can supply a shedload of evidence that light travels in straight lines without bending, and we can do it without using the earth's surface as a reference measure.
Show me one experiment which shows that light travels in straight lines.
-
Making this into a topic by itself, and moving to Q&A.
-
No, what I said is that I don't believe the Earth to be flat.
You should clarify the difference. Otherwise you look like a raving troll.
Show me one experiment which shows that light travels in straight lines.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Describe_an_experiment_that_show%27s_how_light_travels_in_a_straight_line
This is Key Stage 3 stuff. Ie for 11 to 14 year olds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Stage_3) Given that you're supposed to be in the second year of a physics degree it makes me worry a little.
-
You should clarify the difference. Otherwise you look like a raving troll.
The difference should be quite obvious to anybody with a satisfactory grasp of the English language.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Describe_an_experiment_that_show%27s_how_light_travels_in_a_straight_line
What is the uncertainty in the measured curvature in that experiment?
-
The difference should be quite obvious to anybody with a satisfactory grasp of the English language.
That's not clarification. Sorry but you're looking more and more like a raving troll.
What is the uncertainty in the measured curvature in that experiment?
What measured curvature?
-
That's not clarification. Sorry but you're looking more and more like a raving troll.
I'm not here to teach you basic English skills. Please come back when you've graduated kindergarten.
What measured curvature?
The one you've measured to be zero.
-
I'm not here to teach you basic English skills. Please come back when you've graduated kindergarten.
That's not clarification. Sorry but you're looking more and more like a raving troll.
Actually 99.9% probability raving troll now. Quelle surprise.
If you're going to correct people, give a reason for the correction. It make you look less interwebretardzinga.
What measured curvature?
The one you've measured to be zero.
No sorry I have no idea what you're talking about. I'd ask you to clarify but ... well see above...
-
If you're going to correct people, give a reason for the correction. It make you look less interwebretardzinga.
Irony.
No sorry I have no idea what you're talking about. I'd ask you to clarify but ... well see above...
To say that light travels in a straight line, you have to measure its curvature to be zero. What is the uncertainty in this measurement?
-
Parsifal, I thought the point of this was to debate FE. Not to immediately say, RE is wrong Fe is right.
What's the point then? Just want to circle-jerk your acceptance of the idea? I don't see why you are so hostile to arguing yet continually post and start arguments.
-
Parsifal, I thought the point of this was to debate FE. Not to immediately say, RE is wrong Fe is right.
Please point out where I've said such a thing.
What's the point then? Just want to circle-jerk your acceptance of the idea? I don't see why you are so hostile to arguing yet continually post and start arguments.
I'm not hostile to arguing. I asked Crustinator a question and I am waiting for an answer.
-
To say that light travels in a straight line, you have to measure its curvature to be zero. What is the uncertainty in this measurement?
No. To measure it's curvature as zero would be to presume that all you need to do is dismiss a curve. Light could be behaving in all kinds of peculiar ways. One of which would be a simple curve. Luckily the experiment shows that no such peculiar behaviour exists (at least here on earth)
The experiment allows you to set the uncertainty to the level you desire.
So, the answer to your question was found in a kids Key Stage 3 science experiment. I wonder how that one escaped you.
-
No. To measure it's curvature as zero would be to presume that all you need to do is dismiss a curve. Light could be behaving in all kinds of peculiar ways. One of which would be a simple curve. Luckily the experiment shows that no such peculiar behaviour exists (at least here on earth)
The experiment allows you to set the uncertainty to the level you desire.
You have no comprehension of what you are talking about and are trying to scare me away with technobabble. It seems we have reached an end to our debate, sadly.
-
You have no comprehension of what you are talking about and are trying to scare me away with technobabble.
Not really. You not understanding what I posted does not mean I don't understand you. I can try and help you if you like, but you'll have to stop bawwwing first.
-
Not really. You not understanding what I posted does not mean I don't understand you. I can try and help you if you like, but you'll have to stop bawwwing first.
I do understand what you posted. That is how I know you are avoiding the issue with technobabble.
-
I do understand what you posted. That is how I know you are avoiding the issue with technobabble.
Nope. I gave you a clear enough answer. It wasn't even in techno babble.
Stall much?
-
Nope. I gave you a clear enough answer. It wasn't even in techno babble.
Not really. You derailed the thread by mentioning that light might be behaving in some "peculiar ways" that you proceeded not to expand upon, and then further avoided my question by saying that the experiment allows you to set an arbitrary uncertainty.
Let me ask you again but with greater precision, what is the uncertainty in that experiment as it has been performed?
-
You derailed the thread by mentioning that light might be behaving in some "peculiar ways" that you proceeded not to expand upon, and then further avoided my question by saying that the experiment allows you to set an arbitrary uncertainty.
Nope I corrected your answer that the experiment not only rules out simple curvatures but all other possible deformities of light. You didn't seem to understand this and got all obsessed with some previously unmentioned curve.
Let me ask you again but with greater precision, what is the uncertainty in that experiment as it has been performed?
The experiment allows you to set the uncertainty to the level you desire.
-
Nope I corrected your answer that the experiment not only rules out simple curvatures but all other possible deformities of light. You didn't seem to understand this and got all obsessed with some previously unmentioned curve.
That's possibly because we're not talking about other possible deformities. Read the thread title if you're confused.
Let me ask you again but with greater precision, what is the uncertainty in that experiment as it has been performed?
The experiment allows you to set the uncertainty to the level you desire.
In theory, yes. In practice, there are certain limitations created by the size of the laboratory, the size of the holes we can puncture, and the distance over which we can measure a straight line. What is the uncertainty in this experiment as it has been performed, accounting for these limitations?
-
That's possibly because we're not talking about other possible deformities. Read the thread title if you're confused.
I'm aware of that. But you introduced "curvature" to the experiment where non existed. Your understanding was misplaced. It was corrected.
In theory, yes. In practice, there are certain limitations created by the size of the laboratory, the size of the holes we can puncture, and the distance over which we can measure a straight line. What is the uncertainty in this experiment as it has been performed, accounting for these limitations?
??? FFS You just don't get it do you?
Given that A2=B2 + C2 what is A?
-
I'm aware of that. But you introduced "curvature" to the experiment where non existed. Your understanding was misplaced. It was corrected.
If light travels in a straight line, it has zero curvature. Do you disagree?
??? FFS You just don't get it do you?
I think, given time, you will come to realise that I do.
Given that A2=B2 + C2 what is A?
I don't know the value of B or C, so I cannot answer that.
-
Given that A2=B2 + C2 what is A?
I don't know the value of B or C, so I cannot answer that.
Bingo. You're a fast learner.
-
Bingo. You're a fast learner.
You're the one who's supposed to be providing evidence here. If you can't even find one case where the experiment was performed properly with experimental uncertainty recorded, I'm afraid your evidence is fairly weak. It seems to me like you're just assuming that it would work because that website says so.
-
Parsy, take radar as an example. It's merely EMR of a longer wavelength. If it didn't travel in a straight line it wouldn't work. And it does work, as results from radar readings for air traffic controllers for altitude and position agree with those of the plane's onboard instruments.
Laser beams - get a hat with a laser pointer on it. Look towards the horizon and you'll see the beam stretching out straight. Look upwards and the beam looks exactly the same.
Still on lasers, the laser ranging experiment to reflect a beam off the moon would certainly not work if the beam curved, as the beam has to hit the target straight on to reflect back. This would mean the original beam would have to point away from the moon to achieve this.
Every possible use of light in technology assumes straightness of path, and this assumption has never ever produced an anomalous result.
The level of experimental error in any of these is neither here nor there, and you know it, you're just trying to slow down the discussion.
-
Parsy, take radar as an example. It's merely EMR of a longer wavelength. If it didn't travel in a straight line it wouldn't work. And it does work, as results from radar readings for air traffic controllers for altitude and position agree with those of the plane's onboard instruments.
That's because RET is assumed in these calculations. If the Earth was flat and light did not bend, then radar would be erroneous because the Earth's surface would be closer to an aircraft than expected.
Laser beams - get a hat with a laser pointer on it. Look towards the horizon and you'll see the beam stretching out straight. Look upwards and the beam looks exactly the same.
As would be expected if the light curved, because it also curves on its way back, so the net effect is an apparent straight line.
Still on lasers, the laser ranging experiment to reflect a beam off the moon would certainly not work if the beam curved, as the beam has to hit the target straight on to reflect back. This would mean the original beam would have to point away from the moon to achieve this.
And it would, because light coming from the moon (which is the only thing telling us where the moon is) would have curved on its way down.
Every possible use of light in technology assumes straightness of path, and this assumption has never ever produced an anomalous result.
That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.
The level of experimental error in any of these is neither here nor there, and you know it, you're just trying to slow down the discussion.
I'd be interested to get at least an estimate for the uncertainty involved in one experiment which provides support for straight light.
-
So you are saying it is a RE? Because radar works and you say it would only work with an RE?
Also are you saying that a straight laser fired at the moon would still hit it if it bended? And when it comes back, it bends the reverse way and not up again?
-
So you are saying it is a RE? Because radar works and you say it would only work with an RE?
No, I am saying that straight light on a Flat Earth would not work. Bendy light would.
Also are you saying that a straight laser fired at the moon would still hit it if it bended? And when it comes back, it bends the reverse way and not up again?
I don't know how to answer this, mostly because you're asking about a straight laser which bends.
-
What makes the light bend? I heard the phrase electromagnetic acceleration banded around accept that light cannot be moved electromagnetically. It has to be absorbed and re-emitted by a charged particle. I guess if the Earth had a huge mass then it might get bent in the gravitational field. Though a field like that might give itself away.
-
That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.
With that logic, how can you qualify your disbelief in anything?
How do we know it isn't really undetectable goblins that have light tethered and drag it down or up to people?
-
You're the one who's supposed to be providing evidence here. If you can't even find one case where the experiment was performed properly with experimental uncertainty recorded, I'm afraid your evidence is fairly weak. It seems to me like you're just assuming that it would work because that website says so.
Umm sorry. You asked for an experiment that proves light travels in straight lines. I gave you one. It's for little kiddies so you should be able to do it. (It's also repeatable and falsifiable)
Why do you baaaawww so much when people give you what you ask for?
That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.
Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.
-
Parsifal you are wrong about many things, but the one I shall needle you about is the simplest example, the "looking at a laser" one.
If the light can ONLY bend upwards (which is what you state) then what you'd see when looking at a beam bright enough to visible as it passes through the atmosphere is a beam bending upwards. What has failed to register in your smug little brain cell is that when you can see the path of the beam itself, you're not looking directly at the same beam bouncing back. You're looking at particles in the atmosphere illuminated by the beam, which are scattering the light in all manner of random directions, hence the visibility of the beam from different positions. It's like seeing the path of a plane by looking at the vapour trail. Therefore, bending of the beam WOULD be visible.
As for radar - you're just so wrong it's funny.
You're also forgetting your magic bending affects light moving horizontally more than it affects light coming in vertically, which would lead to a difference in angular separation between star positions as they moved across the sky. This never happens, and indeed can be proved never to happen by anyone who has an amateur telescope fitted with either a computer locating system or simple setting circles.
I can crush your other rebuttals but I simply can't be bothered. Now scram.
-
You're the one who's supposed to be providing evidence here. If you can't even find one case where the experiment was performed properly with experimental uncertainty recorded, I'm afraid your evidence is fairly weak. It seems to me like you're just assuming that it would work because that website says so.
Umm sorry. You asked for an experiment that proves light travels in straight lines. I gave you one. It's for little kiddies so you should be able to do it. (It's also repeatable and falsifiable)
Why do you baaaawww so much when people give you what you ask for?
That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.
Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.
In this case Parsifal is totally correct. The experiment you linked to has a level of accuracy, like anything. An example would be measuring if your house is straight. If you take ruler and hold it against the house, and it appears that the surface of the house is flush where you measured, you could use this as evidence to indicate that the side of the house is straight. Of course, you have to assume that the ruler is straight, and this is once source of experimental error (which can be qualified by the most accurate measurement you can take of the straightness of the ruler). Also, you measured the straightness of the side of the house over a relatively short distance, so there is a quantifiable statistical error in the measurement. Clearly in this case, using the ruler to measure the straightness of the house fails to prove anything.
In the same way, bendy light proposes a curvature of light on the order of (not exactly equivalent to) the curvature of the Earth. The accuracy of measurement you need to demonstrate or rule out this amount of curvature over a distance of several meters is enormous. According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
what?
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
what?
For goodness sake man, learn to read other people's posts thoroughly.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
what?
For goodness sake man, learn to read other people's posts thoroughly.
I'm afraid I went through it several times, but could not understand your meaningless blabber.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about triangulating a star position from different points on the earth. I'm talking about observing a pair of stars from one point on the earth but at different times.
For example: say Star A and Star B have an angular separation of 70 degrees. Their angular separation is always 70 degrees, regardless of their positions relative to the horizon. If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky. This would mean the relative positions of A and B to each other would vary in angular separation as the stars moved across the sky. It is extremely easy to prove this does not happen.
-
I'm afraid I went through it several times, but could not understand your meaningless blabber.
Not my fault you're a bit thick.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky.
You make the fallacy that starlight comes from the postion in the sky where it appears to come from. In doing this, you show complete misunderstanding of bendy light theory.
-
In the same way, bendy light proposes a curvature of light on the order of (not exactly equivalent to) the curvature of the Earth. The accuracy of measurement you need to demonstrate or rule out this amount of curvature over a distance of several meters is enormous. According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
I'm confused as to what you're point is. One minute you're trying to argue that the curvature is so small we can't measure it, the next you're insisting that bendy light is observable.
Time to put those thinking caps on kids. We'll get there eventually.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky.
You make the fallacy that starlight comes from the postion in the sky where it appears to come from. In doing this, you show complete misunderstanding of bendy light theory.
Nope, I don't make that fallacy at all. This method of debunking bendy light in fact relies on the very idea that the light would appear to come from somewhere else. You really are a bit dim aren't you? Let me clout you with the idea some more, see if it sinks in:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
-
Your explanation of the bendy light scenario is just the description of a star "circiling" on the night sky around a circle with the center in Polaris.
-
Your explanation of the bendy light scenario is just the description of a star "circiling" on the night sky around a circle with the center in Polaris.
Either you're being deliberately dense and pretending not to understand because you are flailing without a way to refute this, or you genuinely don't understand my simple point by point description.
So either you're a troll or too stupid to be contributing to this topic. I don't mind which of those you want to be.
-
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.
-
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.
That makes no sense at all. The angular distance between stars remains the same regardless of position in the sky.
-
Exactly.
-
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.
So now you are saying this is the result of one star being nearer than the other to an extent that the perspective effect balances out the shift in position? If that's not what you mean then I don't know what else you are describing.
If that is what you're describing it can be thrown out by the simple fact that it would only work from one fixed point on the ground. Two different observers several hundred miles apart would be able to measure different angles between the two stars.
If I'm incorrect about your description then please provide an example or a diagram.
-
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.
So now you are saying this is the result of one star being nearer than the other to an extent that the perspective effect balances out the shift in position?
No, this is not what I am saying.
-
Exactly.
Umm. It disproves "bendy light".
-
Exactly.
Umm. It disproves "bendy light".
No, it doesn't.
-
You do know parsec, just because you say no, doesn't mean that is the absolute word on the subject.
Bendy light has many flaws otherwise, radar, the mirror on the moon, lasers, the seemingly different rates of accelerations.
-
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Light cannot bend (as required on a flat earth) to give the same apparent angle between emitters to all observers without having some sort of intelligence. Malicious intelligence in fact.
Are the stars in on the conspiracy now?
-
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.
So now you are saying this is the result of one star being nearer than the other to an extent that the perspective effect balances out the shift in position?
No, this is not what I am saying.
Well in that case I don't know what you're talking about. Face it, we've just disproved bendy light with possibly the most conclusive method yet, and you're not only clutching at straws but you haven't even got any proper straws left to clutch.
Pending your provision of a diagram or example to explain your cryptic excuse that none of us understand, bendy light is disproved.
-
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Light cannot bend (as required on a flat earth) to give the same apparent angle between emitters to all observers without having some sort of intelligence. Malicious intelligence in fact.
Are the stars in on the conspiracy now?
What are you droning about now?
-
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.
Light cannot bend (as required on a flat earth) to give the same apparent angle between emitters to all observers without having some sort of intelligence. Malicious intelligence in fact.
Are the stars in on the conspiracy now?
What are you droning about now?
Diagram or example to explain the cryptic excuse, please. No sidestepping. Either that, or admit the final disproof of BLT.
-
Why don't you come up with the diagram of your "disproof"?
-
What are you droning about now?
Is this all you can do now? Greate debating fkillf brother.
-
Because it is basic logic. Light would have to bend in many different ways and accelerations to satisfy all of the things that need to be explained by its bending.
So basically there is some weird light god or BLT doesn't exist. Admit what you will.
-
Still waiting on that diagram...
-
Still waiting on that diagram...
Not sure what you're asking for. You need a diagram to show you that light is rectilinear?
(http://www.kindergarten-lessons.com/image-files/light_straight_line.gif)
Note the URL.
-
AAAhahahahahahahahahhahahaaaaa.
-
Why don't you come up with the diagram of your "disproof"?
Because I have posted a very, very clear explanation broken down into a point by point basis which everyone except you seems to be able to understand. If you can't follow that post then the chances of you being able to understand a diagram are almost nil.
Whereas I ask you for a diagram because you have posted one paragraph that you think is a rebuttal but frankly nobody but you can work out what you mean.
-
I'm just curious how would the Foucault-Michelson or Fizeau methods for speed of light measurements work if light bends upwards? These methods rely on careful alignment of laser (or focused light) beams over very long distances in order to get a consistent measurement.
https://class.phys.psu.edu/p457/experiments/pdf/speedoflight.pdf
(As a side note, I wonder how it is that Roemer got a measurement of the speed of light even remotely close to reality using the moons of Jupiter... given that the Earth is not actually moving around the Sun?)
-
In the same way, bendy light proposes a curvature of light on the order of (not exactly equivalent to) the curvature of the Earth. The accuracy of measurement you need to demonstrate or rule out this amount of curvature over a distance of several meters is enormous. According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
I'm confused as to what you're point is. One minute you're trying to argue that the curvature is so small we can't measure it, the next you're insisting that bendy light is observable.
Time to put those thinking caps on kids. We'll get there eventually.
Actually, what I said was that bendy light would be so small over ~6m that you would not be able to measure it (unless you work in a MEMS lab or something). I did not say that it us unobservable, since there are instruments that can resolve 688nm. With a baseline of 6m you cannot say definitively that bendy light does not exist unless you can measure to that accuracy.
-
If its observable you can measure it.
-
If its observable you can measure it.
Ya, where did I say it was unobservable? I said its a small difference (688nm) and would be hard for you to measure. I never said it was unobservable. What I said was that the difference between bendy light and straight light would be unobservable in your 6m experiment, unless the hole in your cards and alignment is accurate at the level of 680nm, which I doubt it is!
-
But the supposed 3000 mile distance of the stars would be definitely big enough to see some. I see Parsec has declined to engage in any more refutation of my example.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about triangulating a star position from different points on the earth. I'm talking about observing a pair of stars from one point on the earth but at different times.
For example: say Star A and Star B have an angular separation of 70 degrees. Their angular separation is always 70 degrees, regardless of their positions relative to the horizon. If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky. This would mean the relative positions of A and B to each other would vary in angular separation as the stars moved across the sky. It is extremely easy to prove this does not happen.
Is it not possible that the stars move differently than you expect? I know it is the same old argument made here over and over again, but how can you prove that the stars aren't much closer and/or moving in some odd pattern? It seems you would have to observe many sets of stars at different points relative to the horizon. I expect that this would be a lot of work for an amateur astronomer, with a high level of accuracy required. Of course this idea ignores redshift, and the combined collaboration of astronomers all over the world, but of course you have to ignore these facts from the get go in order to even consider bendy light.
-
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about triangulating a star position from different points on the earth. I'm talking about observing a pair of stars from one point on the earth but at different times.
For example: say Star A and Star B have an angular separation of 70 degrees. Their angular separation is always 70 degrees, regardless of their positions relative to the horizon. If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky. This would mean the relative positions of A and B to each other would vary in angular separation as the stars moved across the sky. It is extremely easy to prove this does not happen.
Is it not possible that the stars move differently than you expect? I know it is the same old argument made here over and over again, but how can you prove that the stars aren't much closer and/or moving in some odd pattern? It seems you would have to observe many sets of stars at different points relative to the horizon. I expect that this would be a lot of work for an amateur astronomer, with a high level of accuracy required. Of course this idea ignores redshift, and the combined collaboration of astronomers all over the world, but of course you have to ignore these facts from the get go in order to even consider bendy light.
It's easy to dismiss that possibility because the stars can be observed simultaneously from different parts of the world at different elevations. For example, for Vega to maintain a constant apparent distance from Polaris as it neared the horizon, its real position would have to shift further from Polaris. However, to a second observer away to the west across the world, Vega will be at a more or less overhead position and Polaris will be lower than it. Thus if Vega's real position was further from Polaris, it would be extremely noticeable to this second observer.
-
Ya, where did I say it was unobservable? I said its a small difference (688nm) and would be hard for you to measure. I never said it was unobservable. What I said was that the difference between bendy light and straight light would be unobservable in your 6m experiment, unless the hole in your cards and alignment is accurate at the level of 680nm, which I doubt it is!
I don't know what you're arguing for or against here. Let me try again:
If its observable you can measure it.
-
Ya, where did I say it was unobservable? I said its a small difference (688nm) and would be hard for you to measure. I never said it was unobservable. What I said was that the difference between bendy light and straight light would be unobservable in your 6m experiment, unless the hole in your cards and alignment is accurate at the level of 680nm, which I doubt it is!
I don't know what you're arguing for or against here. Let me try again:
If its observable you can measure it.
And he hasn't said it's impossible to measure with the right equipment, just in your kindergarten experiment.
-
And he hasn't said it's impossible to measure with the right equipment, just in your kindergarten experiment.
How much equipment do I need to see the horizon?
-
And he hasn't said it's impossible to measure with the right equipment, just in your kindergarten experiment.
How much equipment do I need to see the horizon?
[/quote]
How is this related to your kindergarten experiment?
-
How is this related to your kindergarten experiment?
Light is rectilinear. See title of thread.
-
How is this related to your kindergarten experiment?
Light is rectilinear. See title of thread.
I don't follow.
-
Forgive me for entering this thread late, and if the question I'm baout to post has already been answered or addressed in this thread, respond angrily or something along those lines.
Okay, here goes.
I admit that "bendy light" is plausible.
What I think needs to be explained is the nature of the bending.
For example, in FET light going completely "vertical" does not bend at all, while the more horizontal the initial emission of the light, the more it bends.
My question is why? How does the light know what is "vertical?" Does it act the same way coming from any light source? Does each light source have a set direction in which light does not bend, but begins to bend the further it gets from that direction (for the rest of the post, I'll refer to the direction the straight light goes as the "Straight direction")? Could the straight direction be altered on some or any light sources? Can the rate at which the light waves bend as they deviate from the straight direction be altered in some or any light sources?
These are all questions which EA theory begs but FET fails to answer, at least to my knowledge. Comments?
-
Forgive me for entering this thread late, and if the question I'm baout to post has already been answered or addressed in this thread, respond angrily or something along those lines.
Okay, here goes.
I admit that "bendy light" is plausible.
What I think needs to be explained is the nature of the bending.
For example, in FET light going completely "vertical" does not bend at all, while the more horizontal the initial emission of the light, the more it bends.
My question is why? How does the light know what is "vertical?" Does it act the same way coming from any light source? Does each light source have a set direction in which light does not bend, but begins to bend the further it gets from that direction (for the rest of the post, I'll refer to the direction the straight light goes as the "Straight direction")? Could the straight direction be altered on some or any light sources? Can the rate at which the light waves bend as they deviate from the straight direction be altered in some or any light sources?
These are all questions which EA theory begs but FET fails to answer, at least to my knowledge. Comments?
All light, regardless of the source, will bend up. This is because the electromagnetic accelerator operates solely in the vertical direction. Light which is perfectly vertical will not be bent at all, whereas light which is horizontal will be affected the most by the EA, which acts to bend the light asymptotically towards vertical.
-
How do you accelerate something going at C?
-
How do you accelerate something going at C?
By changing its direction, since acceleration is a vector.
-
Whats stopping the EA from accelerating straight vertical light faster than C? Because it would rape space-time? It should accelerate all vertical light as well so as much as we can't notice it, it would be going faster than horizontal light. I don't EA has much credence.
-
Because it's not changing the speed of light, just the direction. If you can travel along one direction and turn around and go the other way without stopping, I'd like to see that.
-
Forgive me for entering this thread late, and if the question I'm baout to post has already been answered or addressed in this thread, respond angrily or something along those lines.
Okay, here goes.
I admit that "bendy light" is plausible.
What I think needs to be explained is the nature of the bending.
For example, in FET light going completely "vertical" does not bend at all, while the more horizontal the initial emission of the light, the more it bends.
My question is why? How does the light know what is "vertical?" Does it act the same way coming from any light source? Does each light source have a set direction in which light does not bend, but begins to bend the further it gets from that direction (for the rest of the post, I'll refer to the direction the straight light goes as the "Straight direction")? Could the straight direction be altered on some or any light sources? Can the rate at which the light waves bend as they deviate from the straight direction be altered in some or any light sources?
These are all questions which EA theory begs but FET fails to answer, at least to my knowledge. Comments?
All light, regardless of the source, will bend up. This is because the electromagnetic accelerator operates solely in the vertical direction. Light which is perfectly vertical will not be bent at all, whereas light which is horizontal will be affected the most by the EA, which acts to bend the light asymptotically towards vertical.
Okay, but one part of my question hasn't been answered.
How is "down" or "vertical" or "horizontal" determined?
-
Vertical would be parallel with the force of EA.
-
Vertical would be parallel with the force of EA.
And where is the EA, and is there more than one?
-
It does not matter where it is. Vertical is the direction in which objects that are released from rest move.
-
Stop debating all this claptrap. Bendy light got disproved again earlier in the thread or didnt you notice?
-
Stop debating all this claptrap. Bendy light got disproved again earlier in the thread or didnt you notice?
With what argument? The one about holes in playing cards spaced a few meters apart? That proves light is straight to the same level of confidence as a one foot ruler can prove a highway is straight (not a very high level of confidence). If you are referring to the obscuring of light on the horizon, saying its going to happen without providing some kind of diagram is pretty weak. All a FET'er has to say is that the light would bend in the way that makes the horizon look the way it does. Without a diagram showing that it is contradictory, I don't see how you can refute this.
-
The thing about the stars disproves it very well I think.
-
The thing about the stars disproves it very well I think.
That doesn't sound like an easy test to do yourself to the desired level of accuracy. What kind of angular resolution can you get with an amateur telescope?
-
It's nothing to do with a telescope's angular resolution. It's to do with where it's pointing. If you have a properly set up telescope, equipped with either setting circles (which is a scale round the edge sort of thing) or a computerised pointing system, you can use this to swivel the scope to a known coordinate in the sky. This is also the way big observatory scopes are guided. If a star is not fixed at that location then sometimes you'd move the scope to point at it and it simply would not be there. Given the amount of bending the FE'ers claim light is subject to, over the distance starlight has to travel this effect would be immediately apparent even at low magnifications.
-
What makes the light bend? I heard the phrase electromagnetic acceleration banded around accept that light cannot be moved electromagnetically. It has to be absorbed and re-emitted by a charged particle. I guess if the Earth had a huge mass then it might get bent in the gravitational field. Though a field like that might give itself away.
The undocumented phenomenon of Dark Energy causes the light to bend.
With that logic, how can you qualify your disbelief in anything?
How do we know it isn't really undetectable goblins that have light tethered and drag it down or up to people?
We don't, but we can make statements about the probability of such an occurrence.
Umm sorry. You asked for an experiment that proves light travels in straight lines. I gave you one. It's for little kiddies so you should be able to do it. (It's also repeatable and falsifiable)
Why do you baaaawww so much when people give you what you ask for?
You gave me a concept for an experiment. You haven't provided any source which claims to have performed it properly, with experimental uncertainty taken into account. Anybody suggesting this experiment and being unable to even estimate the uncertainty involved would be scolded at undergraduate level, and laughed at in professional science.
Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.
Irrelevant, and possibly false.
Parsifal you are wrong about many things, but the one I shall needle you about is the simplest example, the "looking at a laser" one.
If the light can ONLY bend upwards (which is what you state) then what you'd see when looking at a beam bright enough to visible as it passes through the atmosphere is a beam bending upwards. What has failed to register in your smug little brain cell is that when you can see the path of the beam itself, you're not looking directly at the same beam bouncing back. You're looking at particles in the atmosphere illuminated by the beam, which are scattering the light in all manner of random directions, hence the visibility of the beam from different positions. It's like seeing the path of a plane by looking at the vapour trail. Therefore, bending of the beam WOULD be visible.
Not if you're viewing the beam from its point of origin, looking along it instead of looking at it from the side. It is conceivable that a distant observer may be able to observe curvature in the beam, but given that the beam's curvature would be expected to be approximately equal to that of the Earth's curvature in RET, such an observer would need to be very far distant indeed - distant enough that the laser would need to be extremely powerful for them to even have a chance of glimpsing it in the best of conditions.
As for radar - you're just so wrong it's funny.
Then please, let me in on the joke. I could use a good laugh.
You're also forgetting your magic bending affects light moving horizontally more than it affects light coming in vertically, which would lead to a difference in angular separation between star positions as they moved across the sky. This never happens, and indeed can be proved never to happen by anyone who has an amateur telescope fitted with either a computer locating system or simple setting circles.
It is my feeling that bendy light would simply counteract the perspective distortion of the stars, thus causing their angular separation to remain constant. Whether a rigorous quantitative analysis supports this idea remains to be seen.
For example, in FET light going completely "vertical" does not bend at all, while the more horizontal the initial emission of the light, the more it bends.
My question is why? How does the light know what is "vertical?" Does it act the same way coming from any light source? Does each light source have a set direction in which light does not bend, but begins to bend the further it gets from that direction (for the rest of the post, I'll refer to the direction the straight light goes as the "Straight direction")? Could the straight direction be altered on some or any light sources? Can the rate at which the light waves bend as they deviate from the straight direction be altered in some or any light sources?
These are all questions which EA theory begs but FET fails to answer, at least to my knowledge. Comments?
The accelerating effect on a light ray due to dark energy can be thought of as a constant vertical acceleration. This is, of course, divided into two components, one parallel and one perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the light ray. The one parallel to it is ineffective because c is constant, and the one perpendicular to it is proportional in magnitude to the cosine of the angle made between the light ray and the horizontal. This is why horizontal light is bent the most, and vertical light is not bent at all. This is also the basis for my derivation of the approximate description of bendy light (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30679.0).
-
It is my feeling that bendy light would simply counteract the perspective distortion of the stars, thus causing their angular separation to remain constant. Whether a rigorous quantitative analysis supports this idea remains to be seen.
You're talking nonsense here. If by "perspective distortion" you refer to the compression of perspective you'd get if the stars were as close as FE'ers want them to be, then you would get variance in the star's relative positions depending on how close you were to the edge of the disc as your viewing location. The only way you could counter that is by claiming that you'd see more light bending from the centre of the disc than from the edge, however that idea can be knocked on the head as it would seriously affect things like the time it takes for the sun to cross the sky between rising and setting.
-
You're talking nonsense here. If by "perspective distortion" you refer to the compression of perspective you'd get if the stars were as close as FE'ers want them to be, then you would get variance in the star's relative positions depending on how close you were to the edge of the disc as your viewing location. The only way you could counter that is by claiming that you'd see more light bending from the centre of the disc than from the edge, however that idea can be knocked on the head as it would seriously affect things like the time it takes for the sun to cross the sky between rising and setting.
No, I mean the perspective distortion that causes faraway objects with equal linear separation to appear closer together than nearby ones.
-
You're talking nonsense here. If by "perspective distortion" you refer to the compression of perspective you'd get if the stars were as close as FE'ers want them to be, then you would get variance in the star's relative positions depending on how close you were to the edge of the disc as your viewing location. The only way you could counter that is by claiming that you'd see more light bending from the centre of the disc than from the edge, however that idea can be knocked on the head as it would seriously affect things like the time it takes for the sun to cross the sky between rising and setting.
No, I mean the perspective distortion that causes faraway objects with equal linear separation to appear closer together than nearby ones.
Yes, that's what I meant, I just didn't word it as well as that.
As I said, in order for that to be the case, the amount of light bend would have to vary with distance from disc edge, just as the perspective effect would. This would affect things like the time it takes for the sun to cross the sky between rising and setting.
-
As I said, in order for that to be the case, the amount of light bend would have to vary with distance from disc edge, just as the perspective effect would.
Why? The perspective effect is the same for any observer in any location, regardless of their position on Earth.
-
As I said, in order for that to be the case, the amount of light bend would have to vary with distance from disc edge, just as the perspective effect would.
Why? The perspective effect is the same for any observer in any location, regardless of their position on Earth.
If the perspective effect is the same for any observer on earth, it proves the stars are more than 3000 miles away. Otherwise it wouldn't be.
-
If the perspective effect is the same for any observer on earth, it proves the stars are more than 3000 miles away. Otherwise it wouldn't be.
You are making no sense. At any instant, any observer on Earth sees a plane of stars approximately 5 Mm upward in the sky extending out in all directions horizontally. Why should the perspective effect act differently depending on their location?
-
If the perspective effect is the same for any observer on earth, it proves the stars are more than 3000 miles away. Otherwise it wouldn't be.
I understand perfectly what you mean, but I will act the dolt and pretend you are making no sense. At any instant, any observer on Earth sees a plane of stars approximately 5 Mm upward in the sky extending out in all directions. Why should the perspective effect act differently depending on their location?
Imagine you're near the edge of the disc, looking at stars beyond the edge, not directly overhead. Now imagine you have travelled 2000 miles back from the edge but are looking towards those same stars. They all look the same distance apart. If we suppose for a minute that light doesn't bend, would you agree that in this circumstance the stars would look closer together from the further viewpoint? This is no different to any other perspective anywhere else. If you then compensate for that perspective effect by making light bend, then the amount of bending has to vary depending on how much compensation for perspective is needed. Near the rim, less compensation for perspective is needed. Further in, more compensation for perspective is needed in order to make the stars appear the same. Therefore, with this scenario, the amount of light bending MUST be proportional to distance from the rim.
However, if the stars were much, much further than their supposed 3000 mile distance, then there would be no noticeable perspective effect.
-
Imagine you're near the edge of the disc, looking at stars beyond the edge, not directly overhead. Now imagine you have travelled 2000 miles back from the edge but are looking towards those same stars. They all look the same distance apart. If we suppose for a minute that light doesn't bend, would you agree that in this circumstance the stars would look closer together from the further viewpoint? This is no different to any other perspective anywhere else. If you then compensate for that perspective effect by making light bend, then the amount of bending has to vary depending on how much compensation for perspective is needed. Near the rim, less compensation for perspective is needed. Further in, more compensation for perspective is needed in order to make the stars appear the same. Therefore, with this scenario, the amount of light bending MUST be proportional to distance from the rim.
No, by moving back from the edge you are also moving away from the stars, thereby increasing the distance to them and increasing the bending due to being further away from the stars. Not further away from the edge, but further away from the stars.
To illustrate, if you now look behind you at Polaris and its surrounding stars and continue moving away from the rim, then without bendy light they would appear to be closer apart from further away, just as the other stars were. Does that mean that more compensation is required closer to the edge?
-
Why exactly is the acceleration do nothing on vertical light? Because reality would implode? Pretty bad theory if it doesn't even work internally...
-
Why exactly is the acceleration do nothing on vertical light? Because reality would implode?
Because light travels at c.
-
Other than the theory of relativity, (which you ignore parts of), why would the acceleration stop at the vertical? Why does it stop at the vertical? How does dark matter work? Is there a massive clump using gravity to accelerate light? That means only infinite disc theory works and that has its own problems. Why doesn't all this gravity affect us? (the one that bends the light)
-
Why exactly is the acceleration do nothing on vertical light? Because reality would implode? Pretty bad theory if it doesn't even work internally...
If there was a force acting on light in its direction of travel, the light would not accelerate since it is already going at c. However, one could perhaps change the direction of light, and it all works within Special Relativity as long as every observer still observes the light traveling at c.
-
Other than the theory of relativity, (which you ignore parts of)
Please tell me which parts of relativity I have ignored.
why would the acceleration stop at the vertical?
Because light travels at c.
How does dark matter work? Is there a massive clump using gravity to accelerate light? That means only infinite disc theory works and that has its own problems. Why doesn't all this gravity affect us? (the one that bends the light)
Light isn't being bent by gravitation, it is being bent by Dark Energy. The exact mechanism is unknown.
-
Imagine you're near the edge of the disc, looking at stars beyond the edge, not directly overhead. Now imagine you have travelled 2000 miles back from the edge but are looking towards those same stars. They all look the same distance apart. If we suppose for a minute that light doesn't bend, would you agree that in this circumstance the stars would look closer together from the further viewpoint? This is no different to any other perspective anywhere else. If you then compensate for that perspective effect by making light bend, then the amount of bending has to vary depending on how much compensation for perspective is needed. Near the rim, less compensation for perspective is needed. Further in, more compensation for perspective is needed in order to make the stars appear the same. Therefore, with this scenario, the amount of light bending MUST be proportional to distance from the rim.
No, by moving back from the edge you are also moving away from the stars, thereby increasing the distance to them and increasing the bending due to being further away from the stars. Not further away from the edge, but further away from the stars.
To illustrate, if you now look behind you at Polaris and its surrounding stars and continue moving away from the rim, then without bendy light they would appear to be closer apart from further away, just as the other stars were. Does that mean that more compensation is required closer to the edge?
You misunderstand me. For a start, your first paragraph there completely agrees with what I was saying, even though you start it with "No". ???
Your second paragraph just confuses me.
Please respond yes or no to the following questions so that I may present my argument in full knowledge of the parameters as you see them:
1. Do you agree that without bendy light, as you get nearer to the rim the stars would appear to be more spread out in their patterns, in accordance with perspective, as if they were painted on a wall? Y/N
2. Do you believe every point in the sky to be equidistant from an observer anywhere on the earth's plane? Y/N
3. Do you believe the stars to be resident on a flat plane in the sky? Y/N
4. Do you believe the stars to be on some sort of dome? Y/N
5. Do you believe the stars to be all roughly at the same distance from earth? Y/N
6. Do you believe the mechanism that causes bendy light to operate on light travelling from a star before it reaches the plane of the earth? Y/N
-
Please respond yes or no to the following questions so that I may present my argument in full knowledge of the parameters as you see them:
1. Do you agree that without bendy light, as you get nearer to the rim the stars would appear to be more spread out in their patterns, in accordance with perspective, as if they were painted on a wall? Y/N
2. Do you believe every point in the sky to be equidistant from an observer anywhere on the earth's plane? Y/N
3. Do you believe the stars to be resident on a flat plane in the sky? Y/N
4. Do you believe the stars to be on some sort of dome? Y/N
5. Do you believe the stars to be all roughly at the same distance from earth? Y/N
6. Do you believe the mechanism that causes bendy light to operate on light travelling from a star before it reaches the plane of the earth? Y/N
What I believe is irrelevant, so I will answer questions beginning with "do you believe" as though they begin "does the model you are arguing for require".
1. In general, N.
2. N.
3. Insofar as "flat" is allowed a degree of variance (as in "Flat Earth"), Y.
4. N.
5. Y.
6. Y.
-
Please respond yes or no to the following questions so that I may present my argument in full knowledge of the parameters as you see them:
1. Do you agree that without bendy light, as you get nearer to the rim the stars would appear to be more spread out in their patterns, in accordance with perspective, as if they were painted on a wall? Y/N
2. Do you believe every point in the sky to be equidistant from an observer anywhere on the earth's plane? Y/N
3. Do you believe the stars to be resident on a flat plane in the sky? Y/N
4. Do you believe the stars to be on some sort of dome? Y/N
5. Do you believe the stars to be all roughly at the same distance from earth? Y/N
6. Do you believe the mechanism that causes bendy light to operate on light travelling from a star before it reaches the plane of the earth? Y/N
What I believe is irrelevant, so I will answer questions beginning with "do you believe" as though they begin "does the model you are arguing for require".
1. In general, N.
2. N.
3. Insofar as "flat" is allowed a degree of variance (as in "Flat Earth"), Y.
4. N.
5. Y.
6. Y.
FFS you can't even do that without nitpicking can you? OK thanks, I will try to put together a better explanation of what I mean tomorrow, now we can both work with the same model. For now I have a headache.
-
You gave me a concept for an experiment. You haven't provided any source which claims to have performed it properly, with experimental uncertainty taken into account. Anybody suggesting this experiment and being unable to even estimate the uncertainty involved would be scolded at undergraduate level, and laughed at in professional science.
No I gave you a real experiment. I explained how the uncertainty can be set by the performer. For some reason you're still baaawwwwing. God alone knows why. You're in the privileged position of being able to prove to your academic peers and mentors that bendy light exists with what amounts to a duplo experiment, yet instead you choose to log on the internet and baww. Go figure.
You've already been told to drop it by the mod team. Why do you keep on brining it up?
Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.
Irrelevant, and possibly false.
Congratulations. You've just made bendy light irrelevant and possibly false.
-
No I gave you a real experiment. I explained how the uncertainty can be set by the performer. For some reason you're still baaawwwwing. God alone knows why. You're in the privileged position of being able to prove to your academic peers and mentors that bendy light exists with what amounts to a duplo experiment, yet instead you choose to log on the internet and baww. Go figure.
You have not provided any source which claims to have actually performed this experiment with proper analysis of results. Ergo, you have not provided evidence for light travelling in a straight line.
Congratulations. You've just made bendy light irrelevant and possibly false.
I can't think of any intelligent response to such an inane comment, so I'm just going to take you to the Monster Fail thread.
-
You have not provided any source which claims to have actually performed this experiment with proper analysis of results. Ergo, you have not provided evidence for light travelling in a straight line.
It's a kiddie experiment. Call your local school. Tell them you're from the university on the hill.
I can't think of any intelligent response to such an inane comment, so I'm just going to take you to the Monster Fail thread.
Watch:
Every possible use of light in technology assumes straightness of path, and this assumption has never ever produced an anomalous result.
That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.
Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.
Irrelevant, and possibly false.
Congratulations. You've just made bendy light irrelevant and possibly false.
Are we learning?
-
It's a kiddie experiment. Call your local school. Tell them you're from the university on the hill.
Small children do not perform experiments, they perform demonstrations. The idea is that you know what the outcome is supposed to be before you give it to the child to perform. The idea is also that the child doesn't have to analyse the results in the same way that would be expected of a professional scientist. If the best you can give me is an experiment that you'd give to a five year old without even a vague estimation of the uncertainty involved, I'm not going to take you very seriously.
Are we learning?
I'm definitely learning that you have a very warped idea of what constitutes rational debate.
-
Small children do not perform experiments, they perform demonstrations.
You're in the privileged position of being able to prove to your academic peers and mentors that bendy light exists with what amounts to a duplo experiment, yet instead you choose to log on the internet and baww. Go figure.
You've already been told to drop it by the mod team. Why do you keep on brining it up?
I'm definitely learning that you have a very warped idea of what constitutes rational debate.
Then you're not learning at all.
-
Then you're not learning at all.
You claimed that the experiment you provided showed light to travel in straight lines. Now you're telling me to go and perform it myself to find out if it does. Are you conceding that you have no evidence for light travelling in straight lines?
-
Are you conceding that you have no evidence for light travelling in straight lines?
No. You asked for an experiment. I gave you one. I'm telling you to do the experiment. Stop bawwwing.
-
No. You asked for an experiment. I gave you one. I'm telling you to do the experiment. Stop bawwwing.
I asked for an experiment which shows that light travels in straight lines. You gave me an experiment which is designed to test the hypothesis that light travels in straight lines. If you can't show me a source which indicates that the experiment has been performed and returned a positive result, then you haven't given me what I asked for.
-
I asked for an experiment which shows that light travels in straight lines. You gave me an experiment which is designed to test the hypothesis that light travels in straight lines. If you can't show me a source which indicates that the experiment has been performed and returned a positive result, then you haven't given me what I asked for.
Nope I gave you an experiment that shows that light travels in straight lines. I gave you what you asked for. And still you baaaawww.
If you want to see a positive result call your local school.
-
Nope I gave you an experiment that shows that light travels in straight lines.
You have yet to provide evidence for this.
-
I asked for an experiment which shows that light travels in straight lines. You gave me an experiment which is designed to test the hypothesis that light travels in straight lines. If you can't show me a source which indicates that the experiment has been performed and returned a positive result, then you haven't given me what I asked for.
Inform me on an experiment that has proved light bends then. And not just some idea of how it could work, show me a documented one that proves that it does.
-
Inform me on an experiment that has proved light bends then. And not just some idea of how it could work, show me a documented one that proves that it does.
I never claimed bendy light had been proven.
-
Inform me on an experiment that has proved light bends then. And not just some idea of how it could work, show me a documented one that proves that it does.
I never claimed bendy light had been proven.
Then why uphold something as if it is true when there is no reason why it should be other than it could possibly make FET plausible. What gives it any more merit than goblins that have light connected to strings and guide them every where? How do we know its not both? Perhaps its both EA and the goblins, so that if EA suddenly stops working, at least the goblins are still there holding tight.
-
Nope I gave you an experiment that shows that light travels in straight lines.
You have yet to provide evidence for this.
Yes I have. The experiment. It's yours to verify. Ask your uni for a research grant while you're doing it. Post results back here.
-
Then why uphold something as if it is true when there is no reason why it should be other than it could possibly make FET plausible.
Are you suggesting abandoning this idea without testing it simply because it has never been tested before?
What gives it any more merit than goblins that have light connected to strings and guide them every where? How do we know its not both? Perhaps its both EA and the goblins, so that if EA suddenly stops working, at least the goblins are still there holding tight.
The mechanism behind EA is unknown, meaning it could well be goblins.
Yes I have. The experiment. It's yours to verify. Ask your uni for a research grant while you're doing it. Post results back here.
The experiment itself is not evidence without properly documented execution, as I have pointed out numerous times. I'm not here to collect your evidence for you.
-
I'm not here to collect your evidence for you.
Perhaps not. You've been given an experiment which is falsifiable. You choosing not to pursue it, and instead choosing to baaww, is your own choice.
/thread
-
Perhaps not. You've been given an experiment which is falsifiable. You choosing not to pursue it, and instead choosing to baaww, is your own choice.
So in conclusion, you haven't given me what I asked for. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
So in conclusion, you haven't given me what I asked for. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nope. In conclusion I gave you what you asked for and you turned it into a baawww party.
You've been told to drop it by the mod team but I entertained you anyway.
Lets get back to the boat nudging fishes Steve. I like it when you tell us about them.
-
Nope. In conclusion I gave you what you asked for and you turned it into a baawww party.
Oh really? Can you point me to the link you provided which details a proper execution of the experiment you provided, indicating that it does - as you claim - show light moving in straight lines?
-
Oh really? Can you point me to the link you provided which details a proper execution of the experiment you provided, indicating that it does - as you claim - show light moving in straight lines?
You've been given an experiment which is falsifiable. You choosing not to pursue it, and instead choosing to baaww, is your own choice.
/thread
-
I'm going to take that as a "no".
-
Please respond yes or no to the following questions so that I may present my argument in full knowledge of the parameters as you see them:
1. Do you agree that without bendy light, as you get nearer to the rim the stars would appear to be more spread out in their patterns, in accordance with perspective, as if they were painted on a wall? Y/N
2. Do you believe every point in the sky to be equidistant from an observer anywhere on the earth's plane? Y/N
3. Do you believe the stars to be resident on a flat plane in the sky? Y/N
4. Do you believe the stars to be on some sort of dome? Y/N
5. Do you believe the stars to be all roughly at the same distance from earth? Y/N
6. Do you believe the mechanism that causes bendy light to operate on light travelling from a star before it reaches the plane of the earth? Y/N
What I believe is irrelevant, so I will answer questions beginning with "do you believe" as though they begin "does the model you are arguing for require".
1. In general, N.
2. N.
3. Insofar as "flat" is allowed a degree of variance (as in "Flat Earth"), Y.
4. N.
5. Y.
6. Y.
Sorry Parsy, I'm afraid we can't continue using your model of the universe in this discussion because your answers regarding points 1 and 5 are directly contradictory to each other. Feel free to return and continue pawing weakly at my theory about the star postions when you have a model that is not self contradictory. Bye bye.
(inb4parsysaying "you are wrong/it's not self contradictory/anything else")
-
Sorry Parsy, I'm afraid we can't continue using your model of the universe in this discussion because your answers regarding points 1 and 5 are directly contradictory to each other. Feel free to return and continue pawing weakly at my theory about the star postions when you have a model that is not self contradictory. Bye bye.
Please explain where the contradiction lies.
-
Sorry Parsy, I'm afraid we can't continue using your model of the universe in this discussion because your answers regarding points 1 and 5 are directly contradictory to each other. Feel free to return and continue pawing weakly at my theory about the star postions when you have a model that is not self contradictory. Bye bye.
Please explain where the contradiction lies.
It lies with points 1 and 5. If you can't work out where the contradiction lies I suggest finding a nice big wall, painting a star pattern on it (Cygnus is quite a nice one) and then driving your car towards it at 60mph while noting how big the pattern looks as you get closer, until eventually, when you smash into it and are thrown through the windscreen, you realise you should have had your brain switched on all along.
-
Sorry Parsy, I'm afraid we can't continue using your model of the universe in this discussion because your answers regarding points 1 and 5 are directly contradictory to each other. Feel free to return and continue pawing weakly at my theory about the star postions when you have a model that is not self contradictory. Bye bye.
Please explain where the contradiction lies.
It lies with points 1 and 5. If you can't work out where the contradiction lies I suggest finding a nice big wall, painting a star pattern on it (Cygnus is quite a nice one) and then driving your car towards it at 60mph while noting how big the pattern looks as you get closer, until eventually, when you smash into it and are thrown through the windscreen, you realise you should have had your brain switched on all along.
So, you're saying the stars are drawn on a wall. Got it. ;)
-
As the Earth revolves around the Sun, an observer on the Earth will see certain nearer stars appear to move around against the backdrop of stars farther away. This phenomenon (called parallax) can be used to determine the distances to nearby (up to about 100 parsecs) stars quite precisely. What sort of testable predictions does flat earth "theory", along with your completely untested "bendy light" hypothesis, offer in terms of stellar distance measurement?
Also, nobody addressed my speed-of-light measurement question either.
-
As the Earth revolves around the Sun, an observer on the Earth will see certain nearer stars appear to move around against the backdrop of stars farther away. This phenomenon (called parallax) can be used to determine the distances to nearby (up to about 100 parsecs) stars quite precisely. What sort of testable predictions does flat earth "theory", along with your completely untested "bendy light" hypothesis, offer in terms of stellar distance measurement?
Also, nobody addressed my speed-of-light measurement question either.
So, what angular resolution would we need to measure a distance of 100 parsecs?
-
About a milliarcsecond, which orbiting observations like Hipparcos can achieve.
edit: Of course, this relies on an assumption that orbiting satellites exist, so maybe I'm arguing a moot point here with you guys.
-
It lies with points 1 and 5. If you can't work out where the contradiction lies I suggest finding a nice big wall, painting a star pattern on it (Cygnus is quite a nice one) and then driving your car towards it at 60mph while noting how big the pattern looks as you get closer, until eventually, when you smash into it and are thrown through the windscreen, you realise you should have had your brain switched on all along.
That analogy would work if you were suggesting that the stars appeared to be further apart the higher up you went.
-
I like bendy light. It tickles!
-
I'm going to take that as a "no".
I don't care how you take it. You've been given a simple answer to a simple question. If you choose to troll or baaawww after this point in a sad effort to get attention then we can all be cool with it.
-
I'm going to take that as a "no".
I don't care how you take it. You've been given a simple answer to a simple question. If you choose to troll or baaawww after this point in a sad effort to get attention then we can all be cool with it.
What do you expect from someone who can't understand that things look bigger when you get closer?
-
What do you expect from someone who can't understand that things look bigger when you get closer?
In general, you are no closer to the stars at the edge of the known Earth than you are in the centre. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm guessing you don't understand your own use of the phrase "roughly the same distance".
-
What do you expect from someone who can't understand that things look bigger when you get closer?
In general, you are no closer to the stars at the edge of the known Earth than you are in the centre. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm guessing you don't understand your own use of the phrase "roughly the same distance".
I'm near the edge of the earth, looking at a star with a fairly low elevation. Where is that star in real physical terms, in relation to me? It can't be above me, either with or without bendy light. It has to be off to the side of the disc somewhere. Now if I travel 1000 miles back from the edge, I'm 1000 miles further from the star.
Unless you've found some weird way to rewrite the rules of physical topology or discovered a new dimension of space, you are wrong.
-
You know, it's just dawned on me why it's so hard to argue with Parsitroll. It's because he won't ever give a proper description of the model he uses for the flat earth so he just refutes everything that supports RE without ever filling in details of exactly why it's wrong. His reasons appear self-contradictory because there is no complete description ever offered. I suggest he's afraid to give a complete description of his model because then when someone poked a hole in it he could no longer just claim people are wrong with no justification or proper explanation. he could no longer add bits and pieces as required because his parameters would already be defined.
In other words, he doesn't have a flat earth model to work with, he simply makes up excuses for each individual point and then if someone notices a contradiction he goes "no, you're wrong".
-
TD, you've been here for how long and you're just now catching on?
-
In general, you are no closer to the stars at the edge of the known Earth than you are in the centre. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from. I'm guessing you don't understand your own use of the phrase "roughly the same distance".
I'm guessing you don't understand the FAQ.
-
TD, you've been here for how long and you're just now catching on?
Yes. I am ashamed.
-
I'm near the edge of the earth, looking at a star with a fairly low elevation. Where is that star in real physical terms, in relation to me? It can't be above me, either with or without bendy light. It has to be off to the side of the disc somewhere. Now if I travel 1000 miles back from the edge, I'm 1000 miles further from the star.
Unless you've found some weird way to rewrite the rules of physical topology or discovered a new dimension of space, you are wrong.
It doesn't have to be off to the side. It can be further in, roughly over the Equator.
-
I'm near the edge of the earth, looking at a star with a fairly low elevation. Where is that star in real physical terms, in relation to me? It can't be above me, either with or without bendy light. It has to be off to the side of the disc somewhere. Now if I travel 1000 miles back from the edge, I'm 1000 miles further from the star.
Unless you've found some weird way to rewrite the rules of physical topology or discovered a new dimension of space, you are wrong.
It doesn't have to be off to the side. It can be further in, roughly over the Equator.
So what you're saying is that it's behind me and above me? I'm looking at a star appearing to lie beyond the edge of the disc, and it's behind me? ???
-
I'm near the edge of the earth, looking at a star with a fairly low elevation. Where is that star in real physical terms, in relation to me? It can't be above me, either with or without bendy light. It has to be off to the side of the disc somewhere. Now if I travel 1000 miles back from the edge, I'm 1000 miles further from the star.
Unless you've found some weird way to rewrite the rules of physical topology or discovered a new dimension of space, you are wrong.
It doesn't have to be off to the side. It can be further in, roughly over the Equator.
So what you're saying is that it's behind me and above me? I'm looking at a star appearing to lie beyond the edge of the disc, and it's behind me? ???
(http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss91/jclmeay/bendylight.jpg)
You forgot this is Bendy Light we are talking about!
Bends perfectly for our viewing pleasure. ;)
-
Thankyou Mr Gentleman! ;)
-
You forgot this is Bendy Light we are talking about!
Bends perfectly for our viewing pleasure. ;)
I am convinced. It is light and it is bending. Therefore "bendy light" has been proven true beyond all doubt.
-
So what you're saying is that it's behind me and above me? I'm looking at a star appearing to lie beyond the edge of the disc, and it's behind me? ???
Where are you getting the idea that it appears to lie beyond the edge of the disc? All you said about the star is that it has fairly low elevation, which means it could lie beyond the edge of the known world, roughly over the Equator, or over some other part of the Earth near the edge some distance away from you. Or are you suggesting that stars which are overhead at the Equator don't appear low in the sky from the coast of Antarctica?
-
You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.
-
You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.
Unpopular idea != Wrong idea
-
So what you're saying is that it's behind me and above me? I'm looking at a star appearing to lie beyond the edge of the disc, and it's behind me? ???
Where are you getting the idea that it appears to lie beyond the edge of the disc?
Perhaps because he said he was at the edge of the disc, then he moved 1000 miles back from it. Therefore he must have been looking at a star that appeared to be beyond the edge of the disc. Otherwise he would be 1000 miles over the edge. Try reading the posts.
-
Perhaps because he said he was at the edge of the disc, then he moved 1000 miles back from it. Therefore he must have been looking at a star that appeared to be beyond the edge of the disc. Otherwise he would be 1000 miles over the edge. Try reading the posts.
He said he moved 1000 miles back from the edge of the disc, not from the star. In this case, the star over the Equator would appear higher in the sky, not lower. Please don't suggest I haven't been reading people's posts when you clearly have no concept of the discussion taking place. Thanks.
-
I'm near the edge of the earth, looking at a star with a fairly low elevation. Where is that star in real physical terms, in relation to me? It can't be above me, either with or without bendy light. It has to be off to the side of the disc somewhere. Now if I travel 1000 miles back from the edge, I'm 1000 miles further from the star.
Unless you've found some weird way to rewrite the rules of physical topology or discovered a new dimension of space, you are wrong.
Please note the section in bold, Parsitroll, which made it clear to everybody except you that I'm looking at a star in the direction of beyond the disc edge. That's the star I'm looking at. I am confirming there is a star and I'm looking at it and it appears to be beyond the edge.
Now grow a pair and stop urinating into this thread.
-
Please note the section in bold, Parsitroll, which made it clear to everybody except you that I'm looking at a star in the direction of beyond the disc edge. That's the star I'm looking at. I am confirming there is a star and I'm looking at it and it appears to be beyond the edge.
Now grow a pair and stop urinating into this thread.
Then how are you showing a contradiction in what I said? My claim was that:
In general, you are no closer to the stars at the edge of the known Earth than you are in the centre.
Somehow you felt you could counter this with a specific example, in which you require the star to be in a particular direction. I am aware that there are stars which you would be closer to as you approach the disc's edge, but there are also stars you would be further away from, and in general there is no correlation between proximity to the edge of the known world and distance to the stars.
-
Parsifal, I suggest that you don't have an FE model to work with. You pick and choose different effects depending on what you want to throw a spanner in the works of, and frankly your ramble about distances to the stars makes no sense to me. You present bits and pieces but never the whole thing - it's like trying to look at a painting by squinting through tiny peepholes and working out what the whole thing looks like.
I think you would save everyone a great deal of time and effort, and additionally make yourself a lot less of a hate figure, if you would present a simple description of the FE model as you see it, so we could all understand it without having to remember everything you typed in different threads. Even Bishop presents more coherent ideas than you do.
Without this, responding to your posts is like arguing with a toddler - I have no idea how much of what I have said you understand, and I am unable to understand a lot of what you say because it includes assumptions and principles that the rest of us are not privy to.
If you are truly interested in a proper debate, I request you present this information on your proposed world view to us. Refraining from doing so will sadly give the continuing impression that you're just a troll.
-
The FE model I am using is a fairly standard one. It differs from explanations presented in the FAQ in that it contains a spherical Sun and Moon and features bendy light. For the moment, I remain undecided as to whether it should be finite or infinite in extent. I'm not sure how this model could be misconstrued to make bendy light work differently as you approach the edge, and you haven't yet explained this clearly.
-
The FE model I am using is a fairly standard one. It differs from explanations presented in the FAQ in that it contains a spherical Sun and Moon and features bendy light. For the moment, I remain undecided as to whether it should be finite or infinite in extent. I'm not sure how this model could be misconstrued to make bendy light work differently as you approach the edge, and you haven't yet explained this clearly.
Explain where the stars are positioned in your model. You don't need to describe the path of light or anything, I merely want you opinion on the physical layout.
-
The FE model I am using is a fairly standard one.
Unless sky mirrors and fish powered boats have become standard... then no.
-
Explain where the stars are positioned in your model. You don't need to describe the path of light or anything, I merely want you opinion on the physical layout.
They are gathered in what could be described as a disc-shaped region parallel to, and approximately 5 Mm above, the Earth.
-
Explain where the stars are positioned in your model. You don't need to describe the path of light or anything, I merely want you opinion on the physical layout.
They are gathered in what could be described as a disc-shaped region parallel to, and approximately 5 Mm above, the Earth.
This model fails as it does not explain the presence of the south celestial pole.
Pick a new model and try again.
-
This model fails as it does not explain the presence of the south celestial pole.
You asked nothing about how the stars move within this arrangement, and I gave no such information. Since the south celestial pole only becomes discernable after consideration of the apparent motion of the stars (and not simply their instantaneous positions), this is an irrational conclusion to draw.
-
This model fails as it does not explain the presence of the south celestial pole.
You asked nothing about how the stars move within this arrangement, and I gave no such information. Since the south celestial pole only becomes discernable after consideration of the apparent motion of the stars (and not simply their instantaneous positions), this is an irrational conclusion to draw.
I'm sorry, but what conclusion is irrational to draw about the south celestial pole? Observing the motion of the stars over an extended period of time is fairly trivial, so the existence of a south celestial pole should be easy enough to demonstrate and any cosmological model needs to be able to explain the existence of such a celestial pole. All you need is a camera with a long exposure setting and a relatively clear night. Just be sure to take the appropriate precautions against the harmful rays of the moon.
-
I'm sorry, but what conclusion is irrational to draw about the south celestial pole?
The conclusion that my model does not explain it. I had assumed that quoting the statement in question would have been self-explanatory.
-
I'm sorry, but what conclusion is irrational to draw about the south celestial pole?
The conclusion that my model does not explain it. I had assumed that quoting the statement in question would have been self-explanatory.
Then how does your model explain the south celestial pole?
-
Then how does your model explain the south celestial pole?
The stars north of the Equator revolve about the north celestial pole, and those south of the Equator revolve about multiple south celestial poles.
-
What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.
-
What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.
No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.
-
What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.
No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.
Being equidistant from two south celestial poles, one should observe two points of rotation and stars converging upon each other when looking directly overhead, but one doesn't does one?
-
What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.
No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.
How far apart are these south celestial poles? Do they overlap? Are there empty regions between them?
-
And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.
Unnecessary duplication? Without motive or reason?
This plop gets better and better Steve.
-
What if you are between the poles? Wouldn't you see the multiple poles? Also the stars are the same at the celestial poles.
No, the south celestial poles are far enough apart that you would only ever see at most one in the sky at any one time. And yes, the stars which revolve around each south celestial pole are identical to those around every other.
Are you trying to be funny or is it an accident?
What if you could see a planet such as Jupiter, from Australia, where you could also see the south celestial pole, and then you went to Argentina and could also see Jupiter and the south celestial pole, and they would be in the same relative positions to each other - does that mean there are multiple Jupiters? If you were mid way between South Celestial Poles you would see stars next to each other that should not be. Youre full of crap, Parsifal.
-
Being equidistant from two south celestial poles, one should observe two points of rotation and stars converging upon each other when looking directly overhead, but one doesn't does one?
Can you provide any documented observations from a point equidistant between two south celestial poles to confirm this?
How far apart are these south celestial poles? Do they overlap? Are there empty regions between them?
That depends how many there are. There must be at least three - one for each major temperate landmass in the rimward annulus - and these could be expected to be found approximately 35 Mm apart. Further observation is required before conclusions can be drawn about stellar behaviour in the intermediate regions.
Unnecessary duplication? Without motive or reason?
The reason is that the stars are observed to be arranged as such. Of course, this suggests some cause for the similarity, but none has yet been found.
What if you could see a planet such as Jupiter, from Australia, where you could also see the south celestial pole, and then you went to Argentina and could also see Jupiter and the south celestial pole, and they would be in the same relative positions to each other - does that mean there are multiple Jupiters?
Planets follow the zodiac. They don't wander far enough south for this to become an issue.
If you were mid way between South Celestial Poles you would see stars next to each other that should not be.
As I asked Its a Sphere above, can you provide any documented observations which verify this?
-
It has to be possible. If there are multiple celestial poles, by nature of being circles, there will be tangents or overlaps. Basic geometry.
-
It has to be possible. If there are multiple celestial poles, by nature of being circles, there will be tangents or overlaps. Basic geometry.
What has to be possible? I responded to five different points in my post, and you've come in talking about "it" as though I'm supposed to know which part you were reading before you decided you had something to say.
-
Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.
-
Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.
Could you try using more specific language? All phrases like "cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside" tell me is that you're trying to sound like you know more than you actually do and than you think I do.
-
What if you could see a planet such as Jupiter, from Australia, where you could also see the south celestial pole, and then you went to Argentina and could also see Jupiter and the south celestial pole, and they would be in the same relative positions to each other - does that mean there are multiple Jupiters?
Planets follow the zodiac. They don't wander far enough south for this to become an issue.
You idiot, Parsy. He's talking about the relative position of Jupiter to a southern star.
Say Jupiter (or any other planet) is at an angular distance of 55o from a southern star, such as Achernar. Wherever you view the sky from, Jupiter will always be 55o from Achernar, meaning there is either more than one Jupiter or it's the same Achernar every time.
-
Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.
Could you try using more specific language? All phrases like "cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside" tell me is that you're trying to sound like you know more than you actually do and than you think I do.
I understand it perfectly. I'm beginning to think you might be autistic. Seriously.
-
You idiot, Parsy. He's talking about the relative position of Jupiter to a southern star.
Say Jupiter (or any other planet) is at an angular distance of 55o from a southern star, such as Achernar. Wherever you view the sky from, Jupiter will always be 55o from Achernar, meaning there is either more than one Jupiter or it's the same Achernar every time.
I don't see why this should be the case.
-
Unnecessary duplication? Without motive or reason?
The reason is that the stars are observed to be arranged as such. Of course, this suggests some cause for the similarity, but none has yet been found.
I think that's better described as unnecessary duplication without motive or reason.
-
Being able to see 2 celestial poles in one spot. If you attempt to cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside, they will touch and be tangent in many locations. This does not hold up at all.
Could you try using more specific language? All phrases like "cover a circle's circumference with circles on the inside" tell me is that you're trying to sound like you know more than you actually do and than you think I do.
Stop being so dodgy and avoiding the question. Its obvious that he is pointing out that multiple poles cannot exist without them overlapping each other, or there being empty spaces in between them.
-
You idiot, Parsy. He's talking about the relative position of Jupiter to a southern star.
Say Jupiter (or any other planet) is at an angular distance of 55o from a southern star, such as Achernar. Wherever you view the sky from, Jupiter will always be 55o from Achernar, meaning there is either more than one Jupiter or it's the same Achernar every time.
I don't see why this should be the case.
If you don't understand why this would be the case then perhaps you should go and learn before making further contributions.
-
I think that's better described as unnecessary duplication without motive or reason.
Okay.
Stop being so dodgy and avoiding the question. Its obvious that he is pointing out that multiple poles cannot exist without them overlapping each other, or there being empty spaces in between them.
A celestial pole is a point. Points cannot overlap without being the same point, and if they are not the same point then there is always some space between them. So yes, that is correct, but it is also a truism.
If you don't understand why this would be the case then perhaps you should go and learn before making further contributions.
On the contrary, I think you need to better consider how this model would function. Bear in mind that a large portion of the sky in this model is almost never observed. There are a lot of stars far beyond the rim that very few people ever get to see. The observations we can rely on have recorded the planets in the sky only when they are on the Earthward side of the rim, near the celestial Equator. It's quite plausible that they orbit about the north celestial pole and don't actually rotate with the stars.
-
Celestial Pole is not just a point. It seems you don't understand what they are. Celestial pole in this case is a point surrounded by stars in a circular pattern, making a lot of overlap or empty space between the poles.
I guess you didn't get that.
-
Celestial Pole is not just a point. It seems you don't understand what they are. Celestial pole in this case is a point surrounded by stars in a circular pattern, making a lot of overlap or empty space between the poles.
I guess you didn't get that.
The north and south celestial poles are the two imaginary points in the sky where the Earth's axis of rotation, indefinitely extended, intersects the imaginary rotating sphere of stars called the celestial sphere.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_pole)
Of course, the definition would need to be slightly modified to comply with the Flat Earth model, but it doesn't change the fact that a celestial pole is a point in the sky.
-
Okay.
Introducing unnecessary duplication without motive or reason is generally considered a Bad Thing in science.
-
The pole is just a point, but to have an axis of rotation which includes all the stars, there must be multiple circles with the center being a celestial "pole."
Honestly, You really don't get this do you?
-
Introducing unnecessary duplication without motive or reason is generally considered a Bad Thing in science.
So we should assume that each electron has different properties to every other until proven otherwise?
The pole is just a point, but to have an axis of rotation which includes all the stars, there must be multiple circles with the center being a celestial "pole."
Honestly, You really don't get this do you?
I understand perfectly. Distinct poles do not overlap.
-
The poles themselves do not but the stars circling them do. I refer to the celestial poles as both the point in which the stars rotate and the stars themselves. The stars would overlap.
-
The poles themselves do not but the stars circling them do. I refer to the celestial poles as both the point in which the stars rotate and the stars themselves. The stars would overlap.
Not necessarily.
-
So we should assume that each electron has different properties to every other until proven otherwise?
That's not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Failbot is fail. Go away.
-
That's not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Failbot is fail. Go away.
It is by your definition, where observation doesn't qualify as reason.
-
That's not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Failbot is fail. Go away.
It is by your definition, where observation doesn't qualify as reason.
Nope. It's still not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Observation is not an issue. Derailbot is fail. Go away.
-
The poles themselves do not but the stars circling them do. I refer to the celestial poles as both the point in which the stars rotate and the stars themselves. The stars would overlap.
Not necessarily.
Please refrain from one or two word answers. Just explain to begin with your self since we are going to ask you anyways.
That said;why would they not necessarily overlap?
-
If they don't overlap, there will be large areas of land in the south with no celestial pole. Must I draw a diagram of a circle with many smaller circles? Basically, there is no way to completely cover a circle with smaller circles without overlap or blank space.
Come on Parsifall, this is taking far longer for u to get than I thought.
-
Nope. It's still not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Observation is not an issue. Derailbot is fail. Go away.
What motive or reason is there for electrons to all behave the same?
Please refrain from one or two word answers. Just explain to begin with your self since we are going to ask you anyways.
That said;why would they not necessarily overlap?
If two circles occupy mutually exclusive areas, those two circles do not overlap.
If they don't overlap, there will be large areas of land in the south with no celestial pole.
Not necessarily.
Must I draw a diagram of a circle with many smaller circles? Basically, there is no way to completely cover a circle with smaller circles without overlap or blank space.
Obviously.
-
If they don't overlap, there will be large areas of land in the south with no celestial pole.
Not necessarily.
Again, this doesn't answer the question. Explain yourself.
-
Again, this doesn't answer the question. Explain yourself.
The areas with no south celestial pole need not be land.
-
That doesn't mean the points don't exist. And FYI, there are probably enough land masses in the south of the south for every perspective to be covered
EDIT: keep in mind that people have been to Antarctica (leave the fact about the south pole alone) and that they will have only observed ONE south celestial pole. Antarctica is probably the best vantage point as it will cover all of your 'zones'
-
That doesn't mean the points don't exist. And FYI, there are probably enough land masses in the south of the south for every perspective to be covered
Only if you include Antarctica. It's conceivable that the other land in the rimward annulus is arranged such that each observer sees one, and only one, south celestial pole.
EDIT: keep in mind that people have been to Antarctica (leave the fact about the south pole alone) and that they will have only observed ONE south celestial pole. Antarctica is probably the best vantage point as it will cover all of your 'zones'
You would only expect to observe one south celestial pole at a time from Antarctica. The others would be all the way on the other side of the disc.
-
Now that's just stupid. So you're saying, at no given point in the sky will stars appear to move in opposite directions to each other, and they will only ever spin around a point that isn't above the south pole, but will lead you there if you follow it? Give me a break.
-
Now that's just stupid. So you're saying, at no given point in the sky will stars appear to move in opposite directions to each other, and they will only ever spin around a point that isn't above the south pole, but will lead you there if you follow it? Give me a break.
The south pole isn't a singular point in FET. All of the south celestial poles are above some part of the ring corresponding to 90 °S latitude. Further observation is required to determine whether there are places on Earth where adjacent stars appear to move in opposite directions.
-
keep in mind also, that navigators of old actually used the stars to find their way. I'm sure they would have passed between two of these celestial poles at some stage in their journeys and noted these odd movements. As it stands, there seems to only be one south celestial pole.
-
keep in mind also, that navigators of old actually used the stars to find their way.
Or so the historical records claim.
-
What position are you in to deny these claims? People from damn near every landmass used the stars, not just those of western nations. The Maori (native New Zealanders) used the stars to find their way from the pacific all the way down here to NZ. Granted it is more-or-less a North-South route rather than East-West but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have given a damn about fake space programs and conspiracies.
-
If you were mid way between South Celestial Poles you would see stars next to each other that should not be.
As I asked Its a Sphere above, can you provide any documented observations which verify this?
Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.
-
What position are you in to deny these claims? People from damn near every landmass used the stars, not just those of western nations. The Maori (native New Zealanders) used the stars to find their way from the pacific all the way down here to NZ. Granted it is more-or-less a North-South route rather than East-West but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have given a damn about fake space programs and conspiracies.
How did they know New Zealand existed before they went down there and found it? They weren't navigating to somewhere, in fact I'd question whether they were doing anything other than rafting blindly.
Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.
Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles? If not, you can't say what is actually observed at such a location.
-
Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.
Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles? If not, you can't say what is actually observed at such a location.
Can you provide any documented observations from a point equidistant between two south celestial poles to confirm this? As I asked Its a Sphere above, can you provide any documented observations which verify this?
Have any observations been made to confirm the presence of more than one south celestial pole? It would be somewhat difficult to observe something from a place where existance has yet to be confirmed.
Have you confirmed that multiple points of southern stellar rotation exist and that the rotation about each of these does not result in any anomoly?
-
There are only two celestial poles... one north, and one south. I'm sure astronomers would've noticed a third one by now. They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.
-
Yes, I can. All observations of the southern sky show that stars that are one side of the south celestial pole are never seen next to stars from the other side of the south celestial pole without the south celestial pole being between them. So there, documented observations that you don't see stars next to each other which would be next to each other in your stupid theory.
Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles? If not, you can't say what is actually observed at such a location.
Actually Parsy, the answer is a definite yes and there are documents to prove it. I suggest you read the logs of James Cook's voyages around the southern hemisphere, some of which are available to you in the National Library of Australia. Given that Cook was navigating using sextants and so on, I would think he probably made a fair few observations of the stars, don't you?
-
Nope. It's still not unnecessary duplication without motive or reason. Observation is not an issue. Derailbot is fail. Go away.
What motive or reason is there for electrons to all behave the same?
Uniform and universal laws?
The duplication is quite necessary. The reason is given. Although electrons behave the same in that they are bound by the same laws, they are free to behave as they choose within those laws.
Another halfbaked Paristroll derailment comes shuddering to an end.
If you want to fail less you could try posting less.
-
What position are you in to deny these claims? People from damn near every landmass used the stars, not just those of western nations. The Maori (native New Zealanders) used the stars to find their way from the pacific all the way down here to NZ. Granted it is more-or-less a North-South route rather than East-West but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have given a damn about fake space programs and conspiracies.
How did they know New Zealand existed before they went down there and found it? They weren't navigating to somewhere, in fact I'd question whether they were doing anything other than rafting blindly.
How was America discovered by the west? Sailing [more-or-less] blindly. Some say they were blown off course or got lost. But they found their way back and forth again using only the stars
-
Have any observations been made to confirm the presence of more than one south celestial pole? It would be somewhat difficult to observe something from a place where existance has yet to be confirmed.
Have you confirmed that multiple points of southern stellar rotation exist and that the rotation about each of these does not result in any anomoly?
It is irrelevant whether I have confirmed these hypotheses or not. I was asked to describe the model I am using, and I did so. Others have claimed that it is flawed, so the burden is on them to provide evidence against it. I am not trying to make a case for my model being any better than any other, simply describing it as it is.
There are only two celestial poles... one north, and one south. I'm sure astronomers would've noticed a third one by now. They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.
Could you direct me to information regarding the observatory which is mapping the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town?
Have any of these observations been made midway between two south celestial poles?
Actually Parsy, the answer is a definite yes
Then you agree that there is more than one south celestial pole.
Uniform and universal laws?
Please direct me to the law of physics which dictates that all electrons need have the same properties.
How was America discovered by the west? Sailing [more-or-less] blindly. Some say they were blown off course or got lost. But they found their way back and forth again using only the stars
Yes, in the hubward disc, where the south celestial poles are not visible. Navigation farther south was much less commonplace, and I think there is a case to be made that long-distance voyages south of the Equator have never actually taken place.
-
Definition of an electron Parsifal. All electrons have the same charge, spin, mass, and some more stuff. They are all the same or they are not electrons.
-
Yeah all electrons are identical. Its necessary for a number of phenomena.
-
I thought electrons could have different quantum numbers depending on their placement.
-
Definition of an electron Parsifal. All electrons have the same charge, spin, mass, and some more stuff. They are all the same or they are not electrons.
The definition of an electron is not a law of physics.
Yeah all electrons are identical. Its necessary for a number of phenomena.
That isn't what I asked for.
-
I wasn't really debating it was a statement. If your not a physicist its going to be pretty hard to explain why and I've drunk too much to try and explain it. I typed it into google i'm sure theres plenty of links im sure someone out there has explained it far better than I can. Though to be honest if light bends then its probably best not to make any assumptions about the validity of quantum physics. This is rapidly going past the point where I can be of much use as a physicist. If you think there is a fundametal flaw in modern physics then go for it build it back up from the base theres plenety of experimental data to look at. Maybe an astrologer or someone on hallucinogenics would be of more use?
-
Have any of these observations been made midway between the areas which I conjecture would contain two south celestial poles?
Actually Parsy, the answer is a definite yes
Then you agree that there is more than one south celestial pole.
Fixed.
You forget, Parsy, that us non-autistic people have the ability to work within another's point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. It's something you'll never be able to understand. The inability to do this, as you display, is in fact one of the defining traits of autism.
-
You forget, Parsy, that us non-autistic people have the ability to work within another's point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. It's something you'll never be able to understand. The inability to do this, as you display, is in fact one of the defining traits of autism.
There are no areas which I conjecture would be equidistant from two south celestial poles, because we don't have enough information to know where the south celestial poles are.
-
How was America discovered by the west? Sailing [more-or-less] blindly. Some say they were blown off course or got lost. But they found their way back and forth again using only the stars
Yes, in the hubward disc, where the south celestial poles are not visible. Navigation farther south was much less commonplace, and I think there is a case to be made that long-distance voyages south of the Equator have never actually taken place.
Sorry, I forgot to add that the second sentence I was talking about Maori, not America.
But anyway,
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/o2fst4uo/86782.png)
These are Captain James cook's recorded routes. Clearly he travelled a lot around the southern hemisphere long before other technology was available (during the 1700's) and he would have made use of the stars through using a sextant and other such navigational aids.
Don't even try to tell me there are no documented observations of the stars in the southern hemisphere. Even as we speak, there will be people shipping around the areas in question. Nobody has the power to shut these people up from telling people about "multiple south celestial poles"
-
You forget, Parsy, that us non-autistic people have the ability to work within another's point of view without necessarily agreeing with it. It's something you'll never be able to understand. The inability to do this, as you display, is in fact one of the defining traits of autism.
There are no areas which I conjecture would be equidistant from two south celestial poles, because we don't have enough information to know where the south celestial poles are.
Can we move this to CN please?
You don't need to know where they are for them to have to exist in your model. If you conjecture that multiple SCP's exist, you are at the same time creating the conjecture that there are areas equidistant between them. You can't have one without the other. Now put a sock in it because we're all losing patience with this trolling.
-
Sorry, I forgot to add that the second sentence I was talking about Maori, not America.
But anyway,
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f217/o2fst4uo/86782.png)
These are Captain James cook's recorded routes. Clearly he travelled a lot around the southern hemisphere long before other technology was available (during the 1700's) and he would have made use of the stars through using a sextant and other such navigational aids.
Don't even try to tell me there are no documented observations of the stars in the southern hemisphere. Even as we speak, there will be people shipping around the areas in question. Nobody has the power to shut these people up from telling people about "multiple south celestial poles"
The records say that these people sailed south of the Equator, but that doesn't mean they actually did that. The official records may also have been censored to erase evidence of multiple south celestial poles even if they did sail far south enough to observe them.
You don't need to know where they are for them to have to exist in your model. If you conjecture that multiple SCP's exist, you are at the same time creating the conjecture that there are areas equidistant between them. You can't have one without the other. Now put a sock in it because we're all losing patience with this trolling.
Of course. But unless you can provide evidence of observations showing what is actually observed at a point equidistant between two south celestial poles, you can't say that the predictions of this model are invalid.
-
Could this topic be chopped in half and made into a different thread? For some reason I think we aren't discussing bendy light anymore.
-
The records say that these people sailed south of the Equator, but that doesn't mean they actually did that. The official records may also have been censored to erase evidence of multiple south celestial poles even if they did sail far south enough to observe them.
But they used these stars to navigate. If the south celestial poles led him to different places depending on his longitude, how else would he follow such a west-east path (ignoring censorship of records)? He would have had to switch to different celestial bodies. Then how would he know when to switch? He was using the stars these stars to navigate and so finding this point to switch to a different celestial body would require him knowing his longitude, something he couldn't have done without using these stars.
Your very own theory creates a paradox.
Also, HE mapped New Zealand and so must have travelled to the southern latitudes to do so.
Either admit failure, or come up with another far-fetched theory of your own to explain this. It amuses us all greatly.
-
But they used these stars to navigate. If the south celestial poles led him to different places depending on his longitude, how else would he follow such a west-east path (ignoring censorship of records)? He would have had to switch to different celestial bodies. Then how would he know when to switch? He was using the stars these stars to navigate and so finding this point to switch to a different celestial body would require him knowing his longitude, something he couldn't have done without using these stars.
Your very own theory creates a paradox.
I don't see how. The first explorers to the south would have observed the stars the way they were and figured out how to navigate using them, since before people explored south of the Equator nobody except southern natives knew what the southern skies looked like. Only later might the records have been altered to amend this.
Also, HE mapped New Zealand and so must have travelled to the southern latitudes to do so.
Yes, but that doesn't mean he travelled south of the Equator for the entire journey. He could have crossed to the north of it while in the region which observes one south celestial pole, and back to the south in the region which observes another.
-
Of course. But unless you can provide evidence of observations showing what is actually observed at a point equidistant between two south celestial poles, you can't say that the predictions of this model are invalid.
I wish to do this.
Could you show me a map that would tell me where the multiple southern celestial poles are?
Or is there no map to speak of?
-
But they used these stars to navigate. If the south celestial poles led him to different places depending on his longitude, how else would he follow such a west-east path (ignoring censorship of records)? He would have had to switch to different celestial bodies. Then how would he know when to switch? He was using the stars these stars to navigate and so finding this point to switch to a different celestial body would require him knowing his longitude, something he couldn't have done without using these stars.
Your very own theory creates a paradox.
I don't see how. The first explorers to the south would have observed the stars the way they were and figured out how to navigate using them, since before people explored south of the Equator nobody except southern natives knew what the southern skies looked like. Only later might the records have been altered to amend this.
Also, HE mapped New Zealand and so must have travelled to the southern latitudes to do so.
Yes, but that doesn't mean he travelled south of the Equator for the entire journey. He could have crossed to the north of it while in the region which observes one south celestial pole, and back to the south in the region which observes another.
you can't map a country from a distance. Contrary to belief, New Zealand is quite a diagonal country so I'm sure if such celestial poles existed, he would have observed at least two at some stage.
RET states that there is ONE given point for 90 degrees South (or technically 89.9 recurring) and that two people, following the southern cross (which points south at ALL times) from different sides of the earth would eventually end up in the same place (which we know they do). FET theory states that they would end up further away from each other.
And not to mention the fact that you said earlier about there being one of these independent celestial south poles above Antarctica... Does this mean there is a common pole above Antarctica and the geographic south pole? In other words, it is a point in space rather than a ring? You have contradicted yourself
-
Yes, but that doesn't mean he travelled south of the Equator for the entire journey. He could have crossed to the north of it while in the region which observes one south celestial pole, and back to the south in the region which observes another.
No, he could not have done that. You're just embarrassing yourself with your made up gibberish now. You're also bringing conspiracy into it which means even you have run out of made-up laws of physics to throw into the mix. Now can it, troll.
-
There are only two celestial poles... one north, and one south. I'm sure astronomers would've noticed a third one by now. They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.
Could you direct me to information regarding the observatory which is mapping the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town?
Here's one such survey of the entire southern celestial hemisphere in the near and far IR bands, using a telescope in Chile:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn7048r272urg224/
Here's another survey of the southern celestial hemisphere:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16100615j6l9579/fulltext.pdf?page=1
In the radio regime, the NRAO has conducted a survey of the ENTIRE SKY north of -40 declination (the skies above both Cape Town and Buenos Aires are at about -34 degrees declination) using the Very Large Array:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/
Definition of an electron Parsifal. All electrons have the same charge, spin, mass, and some more stuff. They are all the same or they are not electrons.
The definition of an electron is not a law of physics.
Yes it is. The standard model defines the electron as a fundamental particle having a lepton number of 1, a charge of -e, a spin of 1/2, and a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2.
-
I wish to do this.
Could you show me a map that would tell me where the multiple southern celestial poles are?
Or is there no map to speak of?
There isn't one, because the exact number and location of the poles are not known.
you can't map a country from a distance. Contrary to belief, New Zealand is quite a diagonal country so I'm sure if such celestial poles existed, he would have observed at least two at some stage.
No, the idea is that each singular landmass is entirely within the region observing at most one south celestial pole, since there are no reports of multiple south celestial poles being visible from the same location.
RET states that there is ONE given point for 90 degrees South (or technically 89.9 recurring) and that two people, following the southern cross (which points south at ALL times) from different sides of the earth would eventually end up in the same place (which we know they do). FET theory states that they would end up further away from each other.
There is more than one point corresponding to 90 °S latitude in RET.
And not to mention the fact that you said earlier about there being one of these independent celestial south poles above Antarctica... Does this mean there is a common pole above Antarctica and the geographic south pole? In other words, it is a point in space rather than a ring? You have contradicted yourself
The geographic south pole is a ring. There are multiple celestial poles (corresponding to points in the sky) above it in various locations.
No, he could not have done that.
It's not possible to cross the Equator twice?
Here's one such survey of the entire southern celestial hemisphere in the near and far IR bands, using a telescope in Chile:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn7048r272urg224/
Here's another survey of the southern celestial hemisphere:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16100615j6l9579/fulltext.pdf?page=1
In the radio regime, the NRAO has conducted a survey of the ENTIRE SKY north of -40 declination (the skies above both Cape Town and Buenos Aires are at about -34 degrees declination) using the Very Large Array:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/
None of these are valid answers to my question.
Yes it is. The standard model defines the electron as a fundamental particle having a lepton number of 1, a charge of -e, a spin of 1/2, and a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2.
That is a definition, not a law.
-
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
-
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
This thread has nothing to do with what people believe, and everything to do with examining arguments for a certain model of light. Did you ever have a debate in high school where you had to argue for a position that you personally disagree with?
-
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
As ERTW pointed out, this is irrelevant.
-
It is irrelevant whether I have confirmed these hypotheses or not. I was asked to describe the model I am using, and I did so. Others have claimed that it is flawed, so the burden is on them to provide evidence against it. I am not trying to make a case for my model being any better than any other, simply describing it as it is.
As I said.
It would be somewhat difficult to observe something from a place where existance has yet to be confirmed.
Though it is good to know we can now discount your entire model.
-
Yes it is. The standard model defines the electron as a fundamental particle having a lepton number of 1, a charge of -e, a spin of 1/2, and a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2.
That is a definition, not a law.
It is both a definition and a law. If a particle does not have those properties, it isn't an electron. It's part of the standard model of particle physics.
Here's one such survey of the entire southern celestial hemisphere in the near and far IR bands, using a telescope in Chile:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn7048r272urg224/
Here's another survey of the southern celestial hemisphere:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16100615j6l9579/fulltext.pdf?page=1
In the radio regime, the NRAO has conducted a survey of the ENTIRE SKY north of -40 declination (the skies above both Cape Town and Buenos Aires are at about -34 degrees declination) using the Very Large Array:
http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/
None of these are valid answers to my question.
Yes they are. You asked for a study that is mapping out the sky above buenos aires and cape town. These all cover that region of the sky.
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
As ERTW pointed out, this is irrelevant.
If you honestly believe that the Earth is round, then you must concede that the current model for sunsets and sunrises is far, far simpler than magical light bending which has no real evidence. The model works, and it is wonderfully simple. Why arbitrarily change the shape of the Earth and make the behavior of light more complicated?
-
It is both a definition and a law. If a particle does not have those properties, it isn't an electron. It's part of the standard model of particle physics.
Then the question still stands; why is there more than one of them? Why are there all these electrons around which are exactly the same?
You asked for a study that is mapping out the sky above buenos aires and cape town.
No, I asked for an observatory which is mapping out the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town.
If you honestly believe that the Earth is round, then you must concede that the current model for sunsets and sunrises is far, far simpler than magical light bending which has no real evidence. The model works, and it is wonderfully simple. Why arbitrarily change the shape of the Earth and make the behavior of light more complicated?
My opinions are irrelevant in this thread.
-
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
This thread has nothing to do with what people believe, and everything to do with examining arguments for a certain model of light. Did you ever have a debate in high school where you had to argue for a position that you personally disagree with?
Actually, I have never had to do that. I seriously doubt that I could ever persuasively argue for a position I didn't believe in myself. I just wouldn't be able to rid myself of the feeling that it would be fundamentally dishonest to do so. Consequently, I never had any desire to join a debating team where I might have been assigned to argue in favor of something with which I disagreed. I would have felt especially bad if I actually succeeded in persuading someone to believe in and act on something I knew to be false. To me, the only truly valid criterion for determining the winner in a debate is which debater's position is demonstrably most likely to be true.
-
It is both a definition and a law. If a particle does not have those properties, it isn't an electron. It's part of the standard model of particle physics.
Then the question still stands; why is there more than one of them? Why are there all these electrons around which are exactly the same?
It's just one of the many different kinds of fundamental particles created in the Big Bang. For more details, you may want to talk to a particle physicist.
You asked for a study that is mapping out the sky above buenos aires and cape town.
No, I asked for an observatory which is mapping out the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town.
So what were you hoping for? A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean? You must not understand how astronomy works then.
If you honestly believe that the Earth is round, then you must concede that the current model for sunsets and sunrises is far, far simpler than magical light bending which has no real evidence. The model works, and it is wonderfully simple. Why arbitrarily change the shape of the Earth and make the behavior of light more complicated?
My opinions are irrelevant in this thread.
Yes they are. You're proposing an alternate model to explain something which is already explained perfectly by a much simpler model. A scientific model which is more complicated, but doesn't offer more explanatory power, is automatically an inferior one.
-
So what were you hoping for? A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean? You must not understand how astronomy works then.
I was hoping for justification for this claim:
They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.
Since you either cannot or will not provide any such justification, I expect you to retract that statement.
You're proposing an alternate model to explain something which is already explained perfectly by a much simpler model. A scientific model which is more complicated, but doesn't offer more explanatory power, is automatically an inferior one.
How is a curved Earth any simpler than curved light?
-
How is a curved Earth any simpler than curved light?
How can you seriously ask that, given the complexity of your proposed equations for bendy light compared to the equations for a spherical earth?
-
How can you seriously ask that, given the complexity of your proposed equations for bendy light compared to the equations for a spherical earth?
Bendy light is very simply described if one looks at the acceleration of an individual photon in terms of its direction of travel. This translates into a complex description of the shape a light ray traces out over time, however.
-
This translates into a complex description of the shape a light ray traces out over time, however.
Exactly! So why is this in any way preferable to the RET view? You obviously don't think it is yourself, or you would be an actual proponent of FET and "bendy light."
-
Exactly! So why is this in any way preferable to the RET view?
The basic concept is simple. It has some complex consequences, but so does RET.
-
So what were you hoping for? A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean? You must not understand how astronomy works then.
I was hoping for justification for this claim:
They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.
Since you either cannot or will not provide any such justification, I expect you to retract that statement.
What part of "Astronomers have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere" don't you understand? That's exactly what those surveys I posted have accomplished.
You're proposing an alternate model to explain something which is already explained perfectly by a much simpler model. A scientific model which is more complicated, but doesn't offer more explanatory power, is automatically an inferior one.
How is a curved Earth any simpler than curved light?
Because the shape of the Earth is a relatively simple one. It's an oblate spheroid. If you really can't see how straight light propagation with a round, rotating Earth, consistent with the existing laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, is simpler than a flat Earth with bendy light, which contradicts both gravitation and electromagnetism, then I'm not sure what to say to you.
-
So what were you hoping for? A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean? You must not understand how astronomy works then.
I was hoping for justification for this claim:
They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.
Since you either cannot or will not provide any such justification, I expect you to retract that statement.
Lrn2CaptainCook. :P
-
you can't map a country from a distance. Contrary to belief, New Zealand is quite a diagonal country so I'm sure if such celestial poles existed, he would have observed at least two at some stage.
No, the idea is that each singular landmass is entirely within the region observing at most one south celestial pole, since there are no reports of multiple south celestial poles being visible from the same location.
RET states that there is ONE given point for 90 degrees South (or technically 89.9 recurring) and that two people, following the southern cross (which points south at ALL times) from different sides of the earth would eventually end up in the same place (which we know they do). FET theory states that they would end up further away from each other.
There is more than one point corresponding to 90 °S latitude in RET.
And not to mention the fact that you said earlier about there being one of these independent celestial south poles above Antarctica... Does this mean there is a common pole above Antarctica and the geographic south pole? In other words, it is a point in space rather than a ring? You have contradicted yourself
The geographic south pole is a ring. There are multiple celestial poles (corresponding to points in the sky) above it in various locations.
1. That's because multiple poles don't exist. Hence the lack of observations of them
2. Yes, I know. But you didn't address the fact that two people following the southern cross will end up in different places when we know that they WILL joint up in the same point.
3. Antarctica is a a convex landmass. It does not encircle earth. We know this to be true.
-
What part of "Astronomers have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere" don't you understand? That's exactly what those surveys I posted have accomplished.
How can they have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere if they haven't observed it from all possible locations? How can they be sure that it would appear the same everywhere?
Because the shape of the Earth is a relatively simple one. It's an oblate spheroid. If you really can't see how straight light propagation with a round, rotating Earth, consistent with the existing laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, is simpler than a flat Earth with bendy light, which contradicts both gravitation and electromagnetism, then I'm not sure what to say to you.
Bendy light contradicts neither gravitation nor electromagnetism.
1. That's because multiple poles don't exist. Hence the lack of observations of them
2. Yes, I know. But you didn't address the fact that two people following the southern cross will end up in different places when we know that they WILL joint up in the same point.
3. Antarctica is a a convex landmass. It does not encircle earth. We know this to be true.
All you've done in this post is spout RE propaganda without any evidence for your claims. When you provide evidence for a singular south celestial pole, observers navigating southward using the stars all meeting at the same point and Antarctica being a convex landmass, then I will be able to give you a more meaningful response.
-
What part of "Astronomers have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere" don't you understand? That's exactly what those surveys I posted have accomplished.
How can they have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere if they haven't observed it from all possible locations? How can they be sure that it would appear the same everywhere?
Because from any good vantage point on the Earth, one can see half the celestial sphere, from the zenith (90 degrees altitude) to the horizon (0 degrees altitude) and all around (0-360 degrees azimuth, measured NESW from the meridian, which is an imaginary arc connecting the zenith to the north horizon). Given the time of day and latitude, one can convert altitude and azimuth to right ascension and declination. Because the celestial sphere rotates around the Earth, one can map out the same portion of the celestial sphere from anywhere at the same latitude. This is how the VLA, in NM, was able to survey the entire sky north of -40 degrees declination.
Because the shape of the Earth is a relatively simple one. It's an oblate spheroid. If you really can't see how straight light propagation with a round, rotating Earth, consistent with the existing laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, is simpler than a flat Earth with bendy light, which contradicts both gravitation and electromagnetism, then I'm not sure what to say to you.
Bendy light contradicts neither gravitation nor electromagnetism.
Bendy light doesn't contradict gravitation, but a flat Earth does. Bendy light does, however, contradict electromagnetism, which has no provision for the kind of dramatic bending required for a flat Earth to appear round. Only in GR do we observe bending of light, and even for things as massive as the Sun only a miniscule amount of bending is observed. Astronomers, however, can use a process called gravitational lensing to observe objects extremely far away. In this case the object bending the light has to be immensely massive, such as a galaxy cluster or a black hole.
-
All you've done in this post is spout RE propaganda without any evidence for your claims. When you provide evidence for a singular south celestial pole, observers navigating southward using the stars all meeting at the same point and Antarctica being a convex landmass, then I will be able to give you a more meaningful response.
There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.
Your an idiot Parsifal.
-
If you want to be taken seriously here, you should refrain from personal attacks. Parsifal is definitely not an idiot.
-
Bendy light contradicts neither gravitation nor electromagnetism.
Wrong.
Snells law.
Fermats Principle of least time.
Maxwells Laws.
Einsteins General relativity.
This isn't news. You just keep posting the same dull crap over and over again Steve. You're the student that never learns.
-
Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the Fermat principle. If light tends to travel in the path that minimizes time of travel, why would it bend in an arc?
-
because the speed of propagation is not the same at all points. ::)
-
because the speed of propagation is not the same at all points. ::)
But you said yourself earlier that light does not accelerate, and that the only thing that's changing is the path direction. If the speed is changing, it's accelerating. Make up your mind.
Or are you referring to refraction?
-
where did i say light's speed is not changing?
-
where did i say light's speed is not changing?
light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.
-
If you're referring to refraction in a medium, I wholehearted agree that the speed of light is different within the medium than without. Bendy light doesn't seem to have anything to do with refraction, though.
-
where did i say light's speed is not changing?
light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.
It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement. Please refrain from using Fermat's Principle, as you clearly have no idea what it reflects and how it is derived.
-
where did i say light's speed is not changing?
light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.
It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement. Please refrain from using Fermat's Principle, as you clearly have no idea what it reflects and how it is derived.
I admit I did misunderstand you, but rest assured that I understand what Fermat's principle is, as it is the principle which governs refraction, among other things. If light is travelling a long distance through the same medium, Fermat's principle would suggest that the light should travel in a straight line until it enters a different medium. This is how I came to the conclusion that bendy light is at odds with the principle. Only at the interface between two media does the path of light change.
-
It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement.
Instead of stamping your feet and asking people to stop talking about things, maybe you should just help us understand your statement...
-
Parsec just seems to enjoy catching people in logical miss-steps instead of actually debating a topic.
-
I'm expecting him to throw equations at us any minute now.
-
It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement.
Instead of stamping your feet and asking people to stop talking about things, maybe you should just help us understand your statement...
Light rays, although they obey analogous mathematical principles as point particles, are just a convenient pictorial representation of propagation of light in a particular domain of applicability called Geometrical Optics. They are not trajectories of some real physical particles. The concept of acceleration is only valid for the mechanical motion of real physical objects. If a light ray is represented by a curved line, it does not mean that there are some particles moving along that line. Therefore, the concept of acceleration is meaningless in the context of optics, even in geometrical optics.
-
Photons are actual particles, and they are also waves. Are you familiar with wave-particle duality?
In addition, if Fermat's principle suggests that light propagates in a straight line unless the medium it propagates through changes, how does bendy light agree with it?
-
Light rays, although they obey analogous mathematical principles as point particles, are just a convenient pictorial representation of propagation of light in a particular domain of applicability called Geometrical Optics. They are not trajectories of some real physical particles. The concept of acceleration is only valid for the mechanical motion of real physical objects. If a light ray is represented by a curved line, it does not mean that there are some particles moving along that line. Therefore, the concept of acceleration is meaningless in the context of optics, even in geometrical optics.
Your post caused Firefox to crash with "0x004332: Fail overflow". I had to reboot. :(
-
Photons are actual particles, and they are also waves. Are you familiar with wave-particle duality?
In addition, if Fermat's principle suggests that light propagates in a straight line unless the medium it propagates through changes, how does bendy light agree with it?
Please stop posting. Reading some general informational articles from an Encyclopedia is one thing, actually knowing what you are talking about is another. Do you even know under what circumstances the corpuscular nature of light becomes observable and under what the wave nature is a more satisfactory model? Furthermore, do you know what Geometrical Optics actually is?
-
Why are you asking me to stop posting? Last time I checked, this was a debate forum. You're also being awfully rude. If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.
Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects. It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect. It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation. And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.
-
Why are you asking me to stop posting? Last time I checked, this was a debate forum. You're also being awfully rude. If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.
Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects. It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect. It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation. And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.
Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.
-
You are not discussing anything. You just provide us with posts low on content, humor or originality.
No. Go back and reread my post.
You're just looking twitchy, accusatory and defensive now. That must be how people win debates on the internet?
What post would that be? Is it the one where you tried to use some immature computer slang in order to appear witty and smart? Well, it is not considered a discussion.
-
Why are you asking me to stop posting? Last time I checked, this was a debate forum. You're also being awfully rude. If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.
Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects. It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect. It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation. And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.
Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.
Clearly the particle properties of light are more prominent in the quantum regime, i.e. at the atomic scale.
At your request, I'm going to back away from this forum for a while so I can actually get work done. Debating isn't fun when you're being insulted.
-
Light rays, although they obey analogous mathematical principles as point particles, are just a convenient pictorial representation of propagation of light in a particular domain of applicability called Geometrical Optics. They are not trajectories of some real physical particles. The concept of acceleration is only valid for the mechanical motion of real physical objects. If a light ray is represented by a curved line, it does not mean that there are some particles moving along that line. Therefore, the concept of acceleration is meaningless in the context of optics, even in geometrical optics.
Your post caused Firefox to crash with "0x004332: Fail overflow". I had to reboot. :(
I'm tired of your low-content posting. Have a fortnight off.
-
Why are you asking me to stop posting? Last time I checked, this was a debate forum. You're also being awfully rude. If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.
Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects. It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect. It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation. And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.
Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.
Read the Feynman lectures if you dont understand it. The particle-wave duality is equally applicable at all scales. Choosing to look at light as either a particle or a wave is simply a matter of convenience depending on what specific properties you are experimenting with. However, the light will still be both particle and wave, at all times. The properties are not "more prominent" at any differing scale, or under different conditions. The only difference is how you are looking at it. It is difficult to explain it any better than that to anyone who hasnt taken advanced math an physics courses. I encourage you to get the set of lectures (you can find a used set for about $100, if you look hard enough). He starts out relating the properties of light to physical objects, such as bullets accelerating out of a gun, and works towards the more esoteric properties of light.
-
Why are you asking me to stop posting? Last time I checked, this was a debate forum. You're also being awfully rude. If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.
Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects. It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect. It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation. And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.
Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.
Read the Feynman lectures if you dont understand it. The particle-wave duality is equally applicable at all scales. Choosing to look at light as either a particle or a wave is simply a matter of convenience depending on what specific properties you are experimenting with. However, the light will still be both particle and wave, at all times. The properties are not "more prominent" at any differing scale, or under different conditions. The only difference is how you are looking at it. It is difficult to explain it any better than that to anyone who hasnt taken advanced math an physics courses. I encourage you to get the set of lectures (you can find a used set for about $100, if you look hard enough). He starts out relating the properties of light to physical objects, such as bullets accelerating out of a gun, and works towards the more esoteric properties of light.
So .... about geometrical optics ... Are light rays trajectories of photons?
-
Your point being? I suppose it depends on your definition of "light rays".
-
Because from any good vantage point on the Earth, one can see half the celestial sphere, from the zenith (90 degrees altitude) to the horizon (0 degrees altitude) and all around (0-360 degrees azimuth, measured NESW from the meridian, which is an imaginary arc connecting the zenith to the north horizon). Given the time of day and latitude, one can convert altitude and azimuth to right ascension and declination. Because the celestial sphere rotates around the Earth, one can map out the same portion of the celestial sphere from anywhere at the same latitude. This is how the VLA, in NM, was able to survey the entire sky north of -40 degrees declination.
Do you have any such justification that does not assume RET?
Bendy light doesn't contradict gravitation, but a flat Earth does. Bendy light does, however, contradict electromagnetism, which has no provision for the kind of dramatic bending required for a flat Earth to appear round. Only in GR do we observe bending of light, and even for things as massive as the Sun only a miniscule amount of bending is observed. Astronomers, however, can use a process called gravitational lensing to observe objects extremely far away. In this case the object bending the light has to be immensely massive, such as a galaxy cluster or a black hole.
I understand how gravitational lensing works, at least in principle, but I don't see that bendy light contradicts electromagnetism at all. Rather, I feel that if bendy light occurs, then electromagnetism as we understand it is incomplete, but not incorrect.
There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.
I tried to come up with a response to this, and failed pathetically because I simply cannot understand what you're trying to say. When you feel like being a bit less vague, I'll be glad to debate with you.
-
There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.
I tried to come up with a response to this, and failed pathetically.
Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.
-
There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.
I tried to come up with a response to this, and failed pathetically.
Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.
I've got $100 on that bet!
-
Epiphany: these debates are pointless because nothing has been proven concretely.
And since both sides are insisting that their theories will be proven one day soon, or perhaps have some form of circumstantial evidence from some incidence another, both sides refuse to accept any other explanations than the one they believe.
There's no concrete evidence for bendy light, and there is no concrete evidence against it.
In my mind, that's all there is to it.
-
There's no concrete evidence for bendy light, and there is no concrete evidence against it.
In my mind, that's all there is to it.
By the same token you're saying there is no concrete evidence for light travelling straight. Given that it's generally accepted by the world at large that light does travel straight, what would you accept as concrete proof of that?
-
There's no concrete evidence for bendy light, and there is no concrete evidence against it.
In my mind, that's all there is to it.
By the same token you're saying there is no concrete evidence for light travelling straight. Given that it's generally accepted by the world at large that light does travel straight, what would you accept as concrete proof of that?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a RE'er and I think light travels straight.
But!
All experiments which we have done which appear to show conclusively straight travelling light can have just enough doubt cast on them by FET to make FET a possibility, however slight.
And all the RE'er debate in the world will not make FET completely impossible, and if its not completely possible the FE'ers will stand by it.
-
All experiments which we have done which appear to show conclusively straight travelling light can have just enough doubt cast on them by FET to make FET a possibility, however slight.
No. All "experiments" for bendy light rely on the disputed shape of the earth.
Even then they fail catastrophically. Eg, stars and large objects over the horizon etc.
FET is a theory based more on discounting RET rather than proving itself. I agree that there really is no concrete proof for any of FET's tenets.
However, since the theory is "possible" no matter how logical us RE'ers will argue, a FE'er will always be able to say "Well it COULD be this way!"
-
Possibility is not always reality.
I could flip a coin one hundred times and and get tails every time.
The earth could be flat if the laws of physics were rewritten.
I totally agree with you. Like I said I'm a RE'er.
But no matter how you argue it, FET will only point out that you could possibly be wrong, meaning they could possibly be right.
That's all any FET/RET boils down to: RE'ers have an abundance of experiments showing that the Earth is round, FET says there is a possibility that those results show the Earth is round if certain conditions exist (and those conditions have never ben conclusively show not exist)
Don't get me wrong man, I totally agree with every single thing you've said.
But the slightest possibility that we are wrong is all a group of tenacious FE'ers need to say that they MIGHT be right.
-
But no matter how you argue it, FET will only point out that you could possibly be wrong, meaning they could possibly be right.
No. Possibility lies in the future.
The earth lies in the present.
We don't need to refer to possibility when we can look and see for ourselves.
FEers have two strategies:
- Torture every law of science to try and make it "fit" their flat earth model. Popular amongst physics trolls who think they can prove a boson is a clockwise spinning hadron.
- Supress and fantisise. Ie claim all experiments are incorrectly performed and build a shadowy conspiracy to fill in the remaining gaps. Popular amongst genuine nutters and those who feel they are important enough to be persecuted.
I think we're saying the same thing, you're just being more specific than I was. At least I feel like what you said was what I was trying to say only more detailed.
What I was trying to imply was that these debates are pointless is because the argument strategies you outlined are filled with enough loopholes (not to mention the ever-useful Burden of Proof dodge) that they can use them to defend against the most logical of arguments.
You can keep trying to back them into a corner, or point out flaws in their theory (which I agree are abundant) but I guarantee you that the FE'ers will always be able to weasel out of every argument you throw at them.
-
FE'ers will always be able to weasel out of every argument you throw at them.
Just like the man who offered to pay out to anyone who could "convince him that the earth was round".
All he had to do was constantly insist he's not convinced.
Money safe. Flat earth theory upheld?
Exactly. That's why their "Burden of Proof" defense is so effective, because they don't have any real experiments providing proof, but they can insist that our evidence isn't concrete until the galaxy implodes.
Any in fact, because I already spent a lot of time Debunking EnaG, at least as much as needed.
-
You can keep trying to back them into a corner, or point out flaws in their theory (which I agree are abundant) but I guarantee you that the FE'ers will always be able to weasel out of every argument you throw at them.
So far none of them have weaselled out of the inability of FET to explain two celestial poles and the path of the sun around the sky in summer as seen from Antarctica.
-
So far none of them have weaselled out of the inability of FET to explain two celestial poles and the path of the sun around the sky in summer as seen from Antarctica.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica
In the Antarctica-as-a-continent model the sun moves around Antarctica during the Antarctic Summer.
-
Okay, but what about the rest of the world? Are there two suns?
-
So far none of them have weaselled out of the inability of FET to explain two celestial poles and the path of the sun around the sky in summer as seen from Antarctica.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica
In the Antarctica-as-a-continent model the sun moves around Antarctica during the Antarctic Summer.
And if you work out the distance it has to travel and the time it has to do it, you will very soon realise it has to speed up enormously as it traverses the far side. Odd, I always thought the sun moved across the sky at the same speed... ::)
Oh yes, if you want to use that model you'll notice it will need to do the same thing at the north pole during the northern summer. Which means at some point (presumably the equinoxes) it will have to flip between two different orbital paths, meaning overnight the sun will suddenly be moving in an entirely different direction to how it was before.
Tell me Bishop, do you think before you start typing?
-
Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.
How does that prove anything? You'll obviously get to the same south celestial pole you started from if you perform that experiment in reality, because you'll be following a path out and back in again. But copies of that path exist around all other south celestial poles too.
-
And if you work out the distance it has to travel and the time it has to do it, you will very soon realise it has to speed up enormously as it traverses the far side
No it wouldn't.
If you haven't noticed, during winter in the Northern Hemisphere the nights become extremely long.
Oh yes, if you want to use that model you'll notice it will need to do the same thing at the north pole during the northern summer. Which means at some point (presumably the equinoxes) it will have to flip between two different orbital paths, meaning overnight the sun will suddenly be moving in an entirely different direction to how it was before.
The sun changes poles at equinox.
-
And if you work out the distance it has to travel and the time it has to do it, you will very soon realise it has to speed up enormously as it traverses the far side
No it wouldn't.
If you haven't noticed, during winter in the Northern Hemisphere the nights become extremely long.
Oh yes, if you want to use that model you'll notice it will need to do the same thing at the north pole during the northern summer. Which means at some point (presumably the equinoxes) it will have to flip between two different orbital paths, meaning overnight the sun will suddenly be moving in an entirely different direction to how it was before.
The sun changes poles at equinox.
Tom Bishop does think before he posts.
Unfortunately, Tom is a rather close minded thinker. As you can see, for him FET is all there ever was, is and will be.
You can also see how well he exemplifies what I was saying earlier.
His entire argument is based on what may be possible, but that's it. And notice how at not point does he cite any true source. He cited a website to explain the Antarctica as a continent theory, but that was the FET wiki which presented theories and no verifiable facts.
Later, he responded to two of thermal detonators critiques with two sentence statements of things Bishop believes in his one-sided mind to be true. In fact he believed them to be so true, he didn't feel the need to provide us with any compelling evidence or proof.
Bishop argues with possibilities, not proof, and RE'ers will never be able to disprove possibilities, as I laid out earlier. Therefore any debate with Mr. Bishop is little more than a time sink.
-
Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.
How does that prove anything? You'll obviously get to the same south celestial pole you started from if you perform that experiment in reality, because you'll be following a path out and back in again. But copies of that path exist around all other south celestial poles too.
The trick is, you DONT start at the south pole and then go back again. You start with a northern hemisphere star there is known to be only one of. You follow the path south from that star. You do this, with the same starting star, from different longitudes around the earth. You thereby prove its the same south celestial pole visible from every longitude.
Thats how it proves it, thicky.
-
Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.
How does that prove anything? You'll obviously get to the same south celestial pole you started from if you perform that experiment in reality, because you'll be following a path out and back in again. But copies of that path exist around all other south celestial poles too.
The trick is, you DONT start at the south pole and then go back again. You start with a northern hemisphere star there is known to be only one of. You follow the path south from that star. You do this, with the same starting star, from different longitudes around the earth. You thereby prove its the same south celestial pole visible from every longitude.
Thats how it proves it, thicky.
I'll admit that I don't know exactly what doing this proves. How does being able to follow a star from one celestial pole to the other show us something about the shape of the earth.
EDIT
The sun changes poles at equinox.
Oh grief. By magic?
Bishop logic is usually borderline magic in my opinion.
-
The sun changes poles at equinox.
Oh grief. By magic?
Bishop logic is usually borderline magic in my opinion.
Do either of you know what an equinox is?
Oh yeah, also:
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture)
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch)
and
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................
(http://www.geminifishing.co.uk/Roger%20Beer%20Rod%20Bend%20250909%20%20LTRM%20300w%20c%20p%20Sh%20JPEG.jpg)
-
The sun changes poles at equinox.
Oh grief. By magic?
Bishop logic is usually borderline magic in my opinion.
Do either of you know what an equinox is?
Oh yeah, also:
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture)
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch)
and
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................
(http://www.geminifishing.co.uk/Roger%20Beer%20Rod%20Bend%20250909%20%20LTRM%20300w%20c%20p%20Sh%20JPEG.jpg)
Win.
-
And if you work out the distance it has to travel and the time it has to do it, you will very soon realise it has to speed up enormously as it traverses the far side
No it wouldn't.
If you haven't noticed, during winter in the Northern Hemisphere the nights become extremely long.
Yes, they do, however the rate at which the sun crosses the sky remains the same. I'm also talking about viewing the sun from a summer hemisphere, i.e. the south pole.
And the rate of travel would have to increase. Go and get a Wilmore Map and do some f***ing maths, or seek out the rather well made animated gifs of solar travel elsewhere on this site.
Oh yes, if you want to use that model you'll notice it will need to do the same thing at the north pole during the northern summer. Which means at some point (presumably the equinoxes) it will have to flip between two different orbital paths, meaning overnight the sun will suddenly be moving in an entirely different direction to how it was before.
The sun changes poles at equinox.
Yes, as I said - 21st March, the sun follows one path round the sky. 22nd March, the sun follows a completely different path round the sky but which is almost negligibly noticeable, even though it flips from going around the south pole to going around the north pole?
-
I'll admit that I don't know exactly what doing this proves. How does being able to follow a star from one celestial pole to the other show us something about the shape of the earth.
Because demonstrating that there is only one celestial pole (which this method does, admirably) crushes Parsifal's silly gibbering about there being multiple south celestial poles, which is the best idea he could come up with to shore up the FET dark secret - they have no explanation for there being two celestial poles. It can't happen on a flat earth.
-
So yar, any chance of EVIDENCE and less hypotheses?
OLOL Learn 2 science ;D
-
I'll admit that I don't know exactly what doing this proves. How does being able to follow a star from one celestial pole to the other show us something about the shape of the earth.
Because demonstrating that there is only one celestial pole (which this method does, admirably) crushes Parsifal's silly gibbering about there being multiple south celestial poles, which is the best idea he could come up with to shore up the FET dark secret - they have no explanation for there being two celestial poles. It can't happen on a flat earth.
So it proves that there's only one pole in the south or north?
Thanks for the explanation. I didn't see Parsifal's post tying to assert multiple south poles being present, so you can understand I was a little lost.
So yar, any chance of EVIDENCE and less hypotheses?
OLOL Learn 2 science ;D
As I said, FET isn't based on evidence, its based on the slim possibility that RET might be wrong.
-
So yar, any chance of EVIDENCE and less hypotheses?
OLOL Learn 2 science ;D
As I said, FET isn't based on evidence, its based on the slim possibility that RET might be wrong.
If it's not based on anything other than scepticism, then it is illogical as you are rejecting a logical theory for what reason? Doubt? Unless you have a scientific reason to doubt, FET is just an exercise in stupidity.
-
So yar, any chance of EVIDENCE and less hypotheses?
OLOL Learn 2 science ;D
As I said, FET isn't based on evidence, its based on the slim possibility that RET might be wrong.
If it's not based on anything other than scepticism, then it is illogical as you are rejecting a logical theory for what reason? Doubt? Unless you have a scientific reason to doubt, FET is just an exercise in stupidity.
Lol why does everyone keep thinking i'm an FE'er? I'm a RE'er who thinks this debate is pointless because a theory based on skepticism can't be disproven no matter how hard you tr. That doesn't make FET a good theory, it just makes it damn impossible to argue against.
-
So yar, any chance of EVIDENCE and less hypotheses?
OLOL Learn 2 science ;D
As I said, FET isn't based on evidence, its based on the slim possibility that RET might be wrong.
If it's not based on anything other than scepticism, then it is illogical as you are rejecting a logical theory for what reason? Doubt? Unless you have a scientific reason to doubt, FET is just an exercise in stupidity.
Lol why does everyone keep thinking i'm an FE'er? I'm a RE'er who thinks this debate is pointless because a theory based on skepticism can't be disproven no matter how hard you tr. That doesn't make FET a good theory, it just makes it damn impossible to argue against.
Damn right ;D Just a giant circus of trolls trolling trolls. So much fun to be had...
-
The trick is, you DONT start at the south pole and then go back again. You start with a northern hemisphere star there is known to be only one of. You follow the path south from that star. You do this, with the same starting star, from different longitudes around the earth. You thereby prove its the same south celestial pole visible from every longitude.
As the northern celestial plane rotates, different parts of it come into contact with different southern hemiplanes at different times. So following the stars south from one star would indeed lead you to a different celestial pole, depending on your position on the Earth's surface.
-
The trick is, you DONT start at the south pole and then go back again. You start with a northern hemisphere star there is known to be only one of. You follow the path south from that star. You do this, with the same starting star, from different longitudes around the earth. You thereby prove its the same south celestial pole visible from every longitude.
As the northern celestial plane rotates, different parts of it come into contact with different southern hemiplanes at different times. So following the stars south from one star would indeed lead you to a different celestial pole, depending on your position on the Earth's surface.
Are you saying the southern stars don't move in sync with the northern ones? Why yes, I do believe you are. I'll get the mop, the chimpanzee is throwing jelly again.
-
Are you saying the southern stars don't move in sync with the northern ones? Why yes, I do believe you are.
Which part of my post gave you that impression?
-
Are you saying the southern stars don't move in sync with the northern ones? Why yes, I do believe you are.
Which part of my post gave you that impression?
As the northern celestial plane rotates, different parts of it come into contact with different southern hemiplanes at different times.
That part.
-
Are you saying the southern stars don't move in sync with the northern ones? Why yes, I do believe you are.
Which part of my post gave you that impression?
As the northern celestial plane rotates, different parts of it come into contact with different southern hemiplanes at different times.
That part.
I don't see how you got that from what I said. Obviously different parts of the northern plane would be in contact with different southern ones, and if the northern one is rotating then parts of it will contact different southern ones at different times.
-
Which sounds like you are saying that they are rotating in contrary directions to each other.
-
Which sounds like you are saying that they are rotating in contrary directions to each other.
It has nothing at all to do with the rotation of the southern planes, so I don't see how you can draw this conclusion.
-
Which sounds like you are saying that they are rotating in contrary directions to each other.
It has nothing at all to do with the rotation of the southern planes, so I don't see how you can draw this conclusion.
Because that's what your description sounds like. To all of us.
See what I mean about a chimp throwing jelly, guys?
-
Because that's what your description sounds like. To all of us.
I don't see how you made the leap from discussing rotation of the northern celestial hemiplane to drawing conclusions about the rotation of the southern ones. If you could explain this to me, that would be very helpful.
-
Because that's what your description sounds like. To all of us.
I don't see how you made the leap from discussing rotation of the northern celestial hemiplane to drawing conclusions about the rotation of the southern ones. If you could explain this to me, that would be very helpful.
I am of the opinion that there is only one of every star in the sky and they all appear to rotate in sync with each other. Since you are the one proposing a different system to the one which we are all already familiar with (even those of us who pretend not to believe it understand it) I think the much-overused Burden Of Proof sits squarely with you to explain how duplicate stars on several different seperately rotating pieces of sky in the southern hemisphere can maintain the same positional relationship to stars further north which are known to be unique. Nobody here understands what your model looks like, and you continually hide behind this in order to use your "I don't see why you're confused" avoidance.
Your arguments go like this:
Parsifal - [insert rubbish made up nonsense physics or object here]
The Rest Of Us - Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense or contradicts XYZ.
Parsifal - No, you are wrong and don't understand.
The Rest Of Us - Huh? Please explain, we want to understand
Parsifal - I don't see why you don't understand. It's perfectly clear to me.
The Rest of Us - This is why we don't understand. Explain to us!
Parsifal - I don't see why you don't understand
(repeat last two responses ad nauseam)
-
I am of the opinion that there is only one of every star in the sky and they all appear to rotate in sync with each other. Since you are the one proposing a different system to the one which we are all already familiar with (even those of us who pretend not to believe it understand it) I think the much-overused Burden Of Proof sits squarely with you to explain how duplicate stars on several different seperately rotating pieces of sky in the southern hemisphere can maintain the same positional relationship to stars further north which are known to be unique. Nobody here understands what your model looks like, and you continually hide behind this in order to use your "I don't see why you're confused" avoidance.
Your arguments go like this:
Parsifal - [insert rubbish made up nonsense physics or object here]
The Rest Of Us - Wait a minute, that doesn't make sense or contradicts XYZ.
Parsifal - No, you are wrong and don't understand.
The Rest Of Us - Huh? Please explain, we want to understand
Parsifal - I don't see why you don't understand. It's perfectly clear to me.
The Rest of Us - This is why we don't understand. Explain to us!
Parsifal - I don't see why you don't understand
(repeat last two responses ad nauseam)
The model I am using is essentially the "celestial gears" model, but I don't like using that name for it because people assume the stars are attached to physical gears.
-
The model I am using is essentially the "celestial gears" model, but I don't like using that name for it because people assume the stars are attached to physical gears.
That's been disproved. No, before you ask, do your own forum search.
-
The model I am using is essentially the "celestial gears" model, but I don't like using that name for it because people assume the stars are attached to physical gears.
That's been disproved. No, before you ask, do your own forum search.
This was all I could find on the subject with a cursory search:
Celestial gears would result in the angular distance between a star on one gear and a star on another gear changing on a cyclical basis. This cannot be observed happening and distance between stars changes only on the most infinitesimal level as seen from earth and not cyclically.
Given that the celestial gear idea therefore directly conflicts with what is observed, it is disproved.
If the stars aren't attached to rigid gears, then there is no reason to believe that there cannot be any flexibility to these gear-like constructs. This would allow the edge of one gear to "stick" to another for a while, providing a continuous stellar plane over those areas in the rimward annulus which contain land.
-
The model I am using is essentially the "celestial gears" model, but I don't like using that name for it because people assume the stars are attached to physical gears.
That's been disproved. No, before you ask, do your own forum search.
This was all I could find on the subject with a cursory search:
Celestial gears would result in the angular distance between a star on one gear and a star on another gear changing on a cyclical basis. This cannot be observed happening and distance between stars changes only on the most infinitesimal level as seen from earth and not cyclically.
Given that the celestial gear idea therefore directly conflicts with what is observed, it is disproved.
If the stars aren't attached to rigid gears, then there is no reason to believe that there cannot be any flexibility to these gear-like constructs. This would allow the edge of one gear to "stick" to another for a while, providing a continuous stellar plane over those areas in the rimward annulus which contain land.
You are suggesting (implied by your mention of "areas which contain land") that there are areas of the sky which are only ever visible from the sea. This is incorrect. If you wish to dispute the incorrectness, identify these areas of sky. Any area of sky which can be seen from land can be consistently observed to have stars which remain in constant relation to each other.
Your idea bites the dust again.
-
You are suggesting (implied by your mention of "areas which contain land") that there are areas of the sky which are only ever visible from the sea. This is incorrect. If you wish to dispute the incorrectness, identify these areas of sky.
Those areas of sky are the ones which are directly overhead the central portions of the southern Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. The aforementioned oceans are far broader in FET than in RET, because of the far larger area south of the Equator, so these parts of the sky are simply too far away from land to be visible.
Any area of sky which can be seen from land can be consistently observed to have stars which remain in constant relation to each other.
To within experimental uncertainty, I would agree.
-
To within experimental uncertainty, I would agree.
And thus logically it follows that, to within experimental uncertainty, you agree that there is only one south celestial pole.
-
And thus logically it follows that, to within experimental uncertainty, you agree that there is only one south celestial pole.
One south celestial pole visible from each major landmass south of the Equator, yes.
-
And thus logically it follows that, to within experimental uncertainty, you agree that there is only one south celestial pole.
One south celestial pole, visible from each major landmass south of the Equator, yes.
Fixed.
-
Fixed.
You haven't shown why these celestial poles need be the same one.
-
Fixed.
You haven't shown why these celestial poles need be the same one.
At some point between the CSPs, the stars will move in opposite directions. Nobody has ever noticed this and infact people circumnavigate the world using only the stars. I have referenced people who have done this and you told me that I and they were liars. Stop making shit up. Somebody would notice them
-
At some point between the CSPs, the stars will move in opposite directions. Nobody has ever noticed this and infact people circumnavigate the world using only the stars. I have referenced people who have done this and you told me that I and they were liars. Stop making shit up. Somebody would notice them
You haven't provided any observations from midway between two south celestial poles. You have no evidence to back up this claim.
-
At some point between the CSPs, the stars will move in opposite directions. Nobody has ever noticed this and infact people circumnavigate the world using only the stars. I have referenced people who have done this and you told me that I and they were liars. Stop making shit up. Somebody would notice them
You haven't provided any observations from midway between two south celestial poles. You have no evidence to back up this claim.
I would think that the professional astronomical observatory in Quito, Ecuador is probably very well positioned to make observations midway between the poles, don't you think?
-
You haven't provided any observations from midway between two south celestial poles. You have no evidence to back up this claim.
I would think that the professional astronomical observatory in Quito, Ecuador is probably very well positioned to make observations midway between the poles, don't you think?
You've chosen well as that's one of the few open to actually getting in a few minutes of observation. You'd best call ahead though, just to make sure.
-
I would think that the professional astronomical observatory in Quito, Ecuador is probably very well positioned to make observations midway between the poles, don't you think?
Midway between two south celestial poles?
-
At some point between the CSPs, the stars will move in opposite directions. Nobody has ever noticed this and infact people circumnavigate the world using only the stars. I have referenced people who have done this and you told me that I and they were liars. Stop making shit up. Somebody would notice them
You haven't provided any observations from midway between two south celestial poles. You have no evidence to back up this claim.
Captain James Cook you nub. I showed you his paths and evidence that he used the stars
-
Captain James Cook you nub. I showed you his paths and evidence that he used the stars
So you agree that Captain James Cook visited areas which are equidistant between two south celestial poles?
-
Captain James Cook you nub. I showed you his paths and evidence that he used the stars
So you agree that Captain James Cook visited areas which are equidistant between two south celestial poles?
I agree Captain James Cook visited areas which you believe would be equidistant from two celestial south poles. However, he managed to get all the way around the world using just one star chart, not several to aid him in the process of finding a new south pole to follow and so I believe your multiple celestial south pole theory to be utter bullshit and completely unjustified. If you want people to believe you, you must explain it in great depth. For now, nobody gives a shit because nobody can possibly see a way that it will work (and indeed, it never will work).
-
I agree Captain James Cook visited areas which you believe would be equidistant from two celestial south poles.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
-
I agree Captain James Cook visited areas which you believe would be equidistant from two celestial south poles.
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
So there is only one celestial south pole? Great, thanks for giving in. We can all sleep easy now, knowing that you understand celestial navigation.
-
So there is only one celestial south pole? Great, thanks for giving in.
How did you get that from what I said?
-
I would think that the professional astronomical observatory in Quito, Ecuador is probably very well positioned to make observations midway between the poles, don't you think?
Midway between two south celestial poles?
Sorry I misread your post. No, there is no midway between two south celestial poles just as there is no midway between your singular brain cell.
-
No, there is no midway between two south celestial poles
I see no reason why this should be the case.
-
So there is only one celestial south pole? Great, thanks for giving in.
How did you get that from what I said?
Because that's what you said. You said there was just one. Thanks.
-
So there is only one celestial south pole? Great, thanks for giving in.
How did you get that from what I said?
You just said your beliefs are irrelevant, therefore nobody need take them into account. Since you're the only proponent of multiple celestial south poles, it is simple to deduce that as you are the only person who believes in the theory, the theory is irrelevant and therefore need not be taken into account.
There is one celestial south pole. People have travelled using that one SCP and the information needed to circumnavigate the globe using one CSP is readily available and nobody has ever been stuck in a circle due to their map only showing them one. Your theory is disproved. If you want people to believe you, go and do the research yourself. In the meantime, I'd rather pay attention to people whose theories actually make sense and do not contradict current observations.
-
You just said your beliefs are irrelevant, therefore nobody need take them into account. Since you're the only proponent of multiple celestial south poles, it is simple to deduce that as you are the only person who believes in the theory, the theory is irrelevant and therefore need not be taken into account.
My beliefs are irrelevant; my argument is not.
There is one celestial south pole. People have travelled using that one SCP and the information needed to circumnavigate the globe using one CSP is readily available and nobody has ever been stuck in a circle due to their map only showing them one. Your theory is disproved. If you want people to believe you, go and do the research yourself.
No. You made the claim that my theory is disproved; I have not attempted to prove it. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one who seems to think that you have proved me wrong, yet you still cannot provide evidence to show that observations between two south celestial poles do not match what is predicted.
-
You just said your beliefs are irrelevant, therefore nobody need take them into account. Since you're the only proponent of multiple celestial south poles, it is simple to deduce that as you are the only person who believes in the theory, the theory is irrelevant and therefore need not be taken into account.
My beliefs are irrelevant; my argument is not.
There is one celestial south pole. People have travelled using that one SCP and the information needed to circumnavigate the globe using one CSP is readily available and nobody has ever been stuck in a circle due to their map only showing them one. Your theory is disproved. If you want people to believe you, go and do the research yourself.
No. You made the claim that my theory is disproved; I have not attempted to prove it. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one who seems to think that you have proved me wrong, yet you still cannot provide evidence to show that observations between two south celestial poles do not match what is predicted.
Why would you argue for that which you do not care?
-
Why would you argue for that which you do not care?
Irrelevant.
-
No. You made the claim that my theory is disproved; I have not attempted to prove it. The burden of proof is on you because you are the one who seems to think that you have proved me wrong, yet you still cannot provide evidence to show that observations between two south celestial poles do not match what is predicted.
Someone in Chile observes Mars at an angular distance of 70 degrees from a southern circumpolar star. Someone in Australia observes Mars at an angular distance of 70 degrees from the same southern circumpolar star. Someone on board a ship in the middle of the Pacific observes the same thing.
If the southern circumpolar star is duplicated, Mars must be duplicated as well, and by extension so must every outer planet. Since we know they are not, we can conclude there is only one of each star and hence only one south celestial pole, thank you and good night.
Now SHUT UP.
-
Someone in Chile observes Mars at an angular distance of 70 degrees from a southern circumpolar star. Someone in Australia observes Mars at an angular distance of 70 degrees from the same southern circumpolar star. Someone on board a ship in the middle of the Pacific observes the same thing.
If the southern circumpolar star is duplicated, Mars must be duplicated as well, and by extension so must every outer planet. Since we know they are not, we can conclude there is only one of each star and hence only one south celestial pole, thank you and good night.
Different southern continents observe night at different times. Can you provide any record of an experiment where observers on two different southern continents observed the same planet at the same time?
-
Someone in Chile observes Mars at an angular distance of 70 degrees from a southern circumpolar star. Someone in Australia observes Mars at an angular distance of 70 degrees from the same southern circumpolar star. Someone on board a ship in the middle of the Pacific observes the same thing.
If the southern circumpolar star is duplicated, Mars must be duplicated as well, and by extension so must every outer planet. Since we know they are not, we can conclude there is only one of each star and hence only one south celestial pole, thank you and good night.
Different southern continents observe night at different times. Can you provide any record of an experiment where observers on two different southern continents observed the same planet at the same time?
They dont need to observe the same planet at the same time, dumbass. if you are suggesting mars magically zips between one south pole and another, youll need to explain why this is never observed from the northern hemisphere where mars is also visible at the same time. Go ahead, punk, make my day.