The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: rolls on January 24, 2010, 07:57:09 PM
-
Ships actually recede over the horizon, disappearing hull-first. In a flat-earth model, they should simply get smaller and smaller until no longer visible, assuming that light travels in a straight line (which has been tested many times). What is the explanation for this?
-
Ships actually recede over the horizon, disappearing hull-first. In a flat-earth model, they should simply get smaller and smaller until no longer visible, assuming that light travels in a straight line (which has been tested many times). What is the explanation for this?
The flat people believe that light bends. Read the FAQ to see the answers to most of your questons.
-
The flat people believe that light bends. Read the FAQ to see the answers to most of your questons.
Sure but how does light bending effect this problem, are they implying the light curves up and away from the earth after a certain distance?
-
The flat people believe that light bends. Read the FAQ to see the answers to most of your questons.
Sure but how does light bending effect this problem, are they implying the light curves up and away from the earth after a certain distance?
yes. It also bends down when it wants, doesn't bend when it wants and changes direction completely, also when it wants to. Good work at theorising, FE'ers
-
It also bends down when it wants, doesn't bend when it wants and changes direction completely, also when it wants to.
Nope.
-
Apparently the Earth's light is special or something because although the light reflected off the ship bends, the Earth's light doesn't somehow so that it looks as if the ship is sinking. Also, apparently Earth's light only bends when it feels like it; The curvature of the Earth from space is supposedly because of bendy light. But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
-
But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
No one knows this, no one has been into space.
-
But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
No one knows this, no one has been into orbit.
Fix'd
There is a curvature from space because you are looking at the edge of a disk. What other shape would you expect to see?
-
But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
No one knows this, no one has been into orbit.
Fix'd
There is a curvature from space because you are looking at the edge of a disk. What other shape would you expect to see?
(http://chamorrobible.org/images/photos/gpw-20051129-NASA-GPN-2000-001039-STS071-741-4-fish-eye-view-of-Earth-and-Space-Shuttle-Atlantis-STS-71-19950702-medium.jpg)
1) Where is the ice wall?
2) Tom Bishop says it appears to curve because it's the edge of the sun's spotlight projection onto the Earth.
3) Why do the clouds get really bunched up at the sides? Have you never seen a spherical object?
(http://www.readytalk.com/community/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/basketball-photo-2.jpg)
So, to you, this object is clearly a flat disc?
-
Ships actually recede over the horizon, disappearing hull-first. In a flat-earth model, they should simply get smaller and smaller until no longer visible, assuming that light travels in a straight line (which has been tested many times). What is the explanation for this?
The earth is spherical? ;)
-
Ships actually recede over the horizon, disappearing hull-first. In a flat-earth model, they should simply get smaller and smaller until no longer visible, assuming that light travels in a straight line (which has been tested many times). What is the explanation for this?
My idea is a cumulative wave effect and atmoplane refraction.
-
But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
No one knows this, no one has been into orbit.
Fix'd
There is a curvature from space because you are looking at the edge of a disk. What other shape would you expect to see?
1) Where is the ice wall?
2) Tom Bishop says it appears to curve because it's the edge of the sun's spotlight projection onto the Earth.
3) Why do the clouds get really bunched up at the sides? Have you never seen a spherical object?
So, to you, this object is clearly a flat disc?
Picture of the shuttle in orbit = fake picture.
And they jacked it up by using a fish eye type perspective...obvious fail. Proves nothing.
-
But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
No one knows this, no one has been into orbit.
Fix'd
There is a curvature from space because you are looking at the edge of a disk. What other shape would you expect to see?
1) Where is the ice wall?
2) Tom Bishop says it appears to curve because it's the edge of the sun's spotlight projection onto the Earth.
3) Why do the clouds get really bunched up at the sides? Have you never seen a spherical object?
So, to you, this object is clearly a flat disc?
Picture of the shuttle in orbit = fake picture.
And they jacked it up by using a fish eye type perspective...obvious fail. Proves nothing.
Not sure why you bothered to quote him. You never addressed any of the points he posted, you just started spouting nonsense. Unless you have proof the picture was faked...shut up.
Cheers
-
The fish eye perspective is to get the most picture with the least amount of camera, because it costs thousands of dollars to simply send a pound into space. The fish eye effect isn't enough to make the world look round if it really was flat, though. Has anyone responded to my argument earlier? Maybe I've won that one.
-
But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
No one knows this, no one has been into orbit.
Fix'd
There is a curvature from space because you are looking at the edge of a disk. What other shape would you expect to see?
1) Where is the ice wall?
2) Tom Bishop says it appears to curve because it's the edge of the sun's spotlight projection onto the Earth.
3) Why do the clouds get really bunched up at the sides? Have you never seen a spherical object?
So, to you, this object is clearly a flat disc?
Picture of the shuttle in orbit = fake picture.
And they jacked it up by using a fish eye type perspective...obvious fail. Proves nothing.
A fish eye lens will not make a 2d disc turn into a 3d sphere. It will distort it somewhat but will not force countries to completely shift to the other side of the planet. It would still look flat if it were, indeed, flat.
-
Apparently the Earth's light is special or something because although the light reflected off the ship bends, the Earth's light doesn't somehow so that it looks as if the ship is sinking. Also, apparently Earth's light only bends when it feels like it; The curvature of the Earth from space is supposedly because of bendy light. But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
Wrong again. Please refrain from attempting to explain the bendy light idea when you have no grasp of how it works.
-
Apparently the Earth's light is special or something because although the light reflected off the ship bends, the Earth's light doesn't somehow so that it looks as if the ship is sinking. Also, apparently Earth's light only bends when it feels like it; The curvature of the Earth from space is supposedly because of bendy light. But then again, that doesn't explain why you can't see the entire Earth from space at a time.
Wrong again. Please refrain from attempting to explain the bendy light idea when you have no grasp of how it works.
Please, explain. Telling someone that they're wrong is one thing. Showing them is another. You haven't done that. And please don't say "Read the FAQ". It's rubbish.
-
Please, explain. Telling someone that they're wrong is one thing. Showing them is another. You haven't done that. And please don't say "Read the FAQ". It's rubbish.
I don't want to turn this into another bendy light thread. We already have two of those going in Q&A alone.
-
By its very nature this already IS a bendy light topic. The question can only be answered in one of two ways:
1. The earth is a sphere (correct by all means)
2. The earth is flat and light bends in a direction pre-determined by humans (utter BS)
-
By its very nature this already IS a bendy light topic. The question can only be answered in one of two ways:
1. The earth is a sphere (correct by all means)
2. The earth is flat and light bends in a direction pre-determined by humans (utter BS)
First of all, your opinions are irrelevant here, so there's no need to append them to possibilities. Second of all, there is another Flat Earth explanation involving perspective. Finally, if this is a bendy light thread it should be locked, and so should one of the other two. I don't feel like repeating myself in three different threads just because people don't know how to lurk before asking stupid questions.
-
By its very nature this already IS a bendy light topic. The question can only be answered in one of two ways:
1. The earth is a sphere (correct by all means)
2. The earth is flat and light bends in a direction pre-determined by humans (utter BS)
First of all, your opinions are irrelevant here, so there's no need to append them to possibilities. Second of all, there is another Flat Earth explanation involving perspective. Finally, if this is a bendy light thread it should be locked, and so should one of the other two. I don't feel like repeating myself in three different threads just because people don't know how to lurk before asking stupid questions.
AGREED. to summarize, read the FAQs and lurk moar.
-
By its very nature this already IS a bendy light topic. The question can only be answered in one of two ways:
1. The earth is a sphere (correct by all means)
2. The earth is flat and light bends in a direction pre-determined by humans (utter BS)
First of all, your opinions are irrelevant here, so there's no need to append them to possibilities. Second of all, there is another Flat Earth explanation involving perspective. Finally, if this is a bendy light thread it should be locked, and so should one of the other two. I don't feel like repeating myself in three different threads just because people don't know how to lurk before asking stupid questions.
Sometimes I like to feel like the king of the internet too.
post counts don't make you cooler.
Your theories aren't exactly very well written. 'Bendy light' Doesn't scream "This is why it looks spherical". It just makes people think about lasers curving around corners. Before you insult people, try explaining why their point of view is irrelevant, because last time I checked, yours don't seem to be any more relevant than mine.
-
Your theories aren't exactly very well written. 'Bendy light' Doesn't scream "This is why it looks spherical". It just makes people think about lasers curving around corners. Before you insult people, try explaining why their point of view is irrelevant, because last time I checked, yours don't seem to be any more relevant than mine.
Bendy light has been explained enough times, in enough depth, to educate anybody who bothered to read a bit of the material on the site before clicking "new thread" and typing the first question we've heard a hundred times before that came into their mind. As I already pointed out, there are two active threads about it on the first page of Q&A alone. Reading them would help you considerably, and if you have any further questions you can ask them there.
Contrary to popular belief, we at FES don't spend every minute of our lives answering the questions of new members who didn't bother to lurk.
-
Then your first answer should have been "read [insert topic link] first" should it not have been? Rather than flaming innocent, equally as important debaters.
-
Please, explain. Telling someone that they're wrong is one thing. Showing them is another. You haven't done that. And please don't say "Read the FAQ". It's rubbish.
I don't want to turn this into another bendy light thread. We already have two of those going in Q&A alone.
That equals "Ah fuckit, I dunno". But kudos to you on not telling me (us) to "Read the FAQ".
-
I don't want to turn this into another bendy light thread.
Jesus! What have you done with the real Steve? Bring him back!
-
Then your first answer should have been "read [insert topic link] first" should it not have been? Rather than flaming innocent, equally as important debaters.
Your first post in this thread was hardly a fair treatment of the EA, or bendy light:
The flat people believe that light bends. Read the FAQ to see the answers to most of your questons.
Sure but how does light bending effect this problem, are they implying the light curves up and away from the earth after a certain distance?
yes. It also bends down when it wants, doesn't bend when it wants and changes direction completely, also when it wants to. Good work at theorising, FE'ers
Did you expect Parsifal to come here and give you a cookie?
I agree that this thread should be locked and pointed to one of the other bendy light threads. Otherwise this will become another 'flame Parsifal because he can think creatively and supports an unpopular idea' thread, of which I have read way too many on this forum. He is not just making stuff up, he actually has diagrams, equations, and explanations, you just have to look for them.
-
Parsifal regularly makes stuff up.
Sky mirrors?
Drawing a diagram doesn't make it so, please stop being so dim.
-
Bendy light has been explained enough times, in enough depth, to educate anybody who bothered to read a bit of the material on the site before clicking "new thread" and typing the first question we've heard a hundred times before that came into their mind.
It's also been rejected enough times by the mod team. Yet still you post it.
-
Parsifal regularly makes stuff up.
Sky mirrors?
Drawing a diagram doesn't make it so, please stop being so dim.
To me the point of an idea like a sky mirror or bendy light is that you cant tell the difference using simple observations. It challenges you to decide if you are believing an idea based on the fact that it is popular, or if you have a logical justification. I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.
-
I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.
That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.
Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?
-
I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.
That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.
Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?
Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
There are a lot of generally unbelievable things out there in modern physics.
As far as high school teachers, they are a great bunch, but sometimes they get it wrong like anyone else. That is why its important to sometimes critically examine what one has held to be true. This is especially important if the idea becomes so self evident to oneself that it is assumed without thought in any situation.
-
Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
Non of those are taught at high school. Thanks for posting.
-
Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
Non of those are taught at high school. Thanks for posting.
Exactly true. And since none of these concepts are taught in high school you should not be surprised if someone gets annoyed with your attempt to use a high school level test to disprove them. I am sure a lot of physicists get quite annoyed at such attempts to disprove SR, such as the back to back flashlight experiment or the high-beams from a moving car (trying to prove that the light speed barrier can be broken) for example.
This concept illustrated:
http://xkcd.com/675/
-
I am sure a lot of physicists get quite annoyed at such attempts to disprove SR, such as the back to back flashlight experiment or the high-beams from a moving car (trying to prove that the light speed barrier can be broken) for example.
Whaaaa?! There's nothing taught in high school which attempts to disprove SR. What are you babbling about?
Curiously though there are many FEers on this forum that repeatedly espouse ideas that contradict SR. (not to mention other more basic laws)
-
Whaaaa?! There's nothing taught in high school which attempts to disprove SR. What are you babbling about?
No, but there are a bunch of know-it-all blowhards that think that they learned enough in high school physics to take on SR or QM. Just try to count the number of noobs that keep (mistakenly) pointing out that it takes just under 1 year to accelerate to the speed of light at 1g.
-
I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.
That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.
Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?
Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
There are a lot of generally unbelievable things out there in modern physics.
As far as high school teachers, they are a great bunch, but sometimes they get it wrong like anyone else. That is why its important to sometimes critically examine what one has held to be true. This is especially important if the idea becomes so self evident to oneself that it is assumed without thought in any situation.
And why do you rather believe there's a sky mirror?
-
I don't think he believes that. From what I've seen, ERTW is not an "FE'er"
-
The sky mirror was disproved based on that the properties it would have to have to explain some phenomena would lead to side effects which are not observed in reality.
-
The sky mirror was disproved based on that the properties it would have to have to explain some phenomena would lead to side effects which are not observed in reality.
I pointed out ways in which all of those observations could be produced by a sky mirror, and you chose not to accept them.
-
I bet one reason there are Devil's Advocates on this site is that so many people believe anything their high-school teacher tells them.
That's because what their high school teachers tell them is believable.
Sky mirrors are not believable. Weird huh?
Is quantum physics and GR believable? How about Dark Energy and reverse time symmetry (CPT violations will blow your mind)? How about the delay choice quantum eraser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
There are a lot of generally unbelievable things out there in modern physics.
As far as high school teachers, they are a great bunch, but sometimes they get it wrong like anyone else. That is why its important to sometimes critically examine what one has held to be true. This is especially important if the idea becomes so self evident to oneself that it is assumed without thought in any situation.
And why do you rather believe there's a sky mirror?
It doesn't matter what I believe (sorry Parsifal, I just had to). My statement was directly squarely at the assertion that a sky mirror could not exist because it is a "silly" idea. I agree that using only optical observations from the ground a sky mirror is equally likely an explanation, since many complicated and highly detailed measurements would be required to show otherwise, and these are likely beyond the average individual's capabilities. However many people have said that there are simple observations that disprove it, but I have yet to see a clear diagram as to how this is so.
-
It doesn't matter what I believe (sorry Parsifal, I just had to).
Should have said, "My beliefs are irrelevant on this forum." =D
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36111.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36111.0)
-
The sky mirror was disproved based on that the properties it would have to have to explain some phenomena would lead to side effects which are not observed in reality.
I pointed out ways in which all of those observations could be produced by a sky mirror, and you chose not to accept them.
This is, in a nutshell, a lie.
-
Picture of the shuttle in orbit = fake picture.
And they jacked it up by using a fish eye type perspective...obvious fail. Proves nothing.
Seriously, you believe that the Earth is flat and you've got the cheek to even utter the word "fail"?
FAIL...