The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: f(x) on June 03, 2010, 09:43:42 PM
-
If you're a FE'er that still accepts gravity, you may be interested in gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens), as proposed by Albert Einstein. Ignoring the shape of the Earth in the diagram below, the gist of it is the fact that light is affected by gravity. Because the gravitational field above an infinite plane is constant (as proposed in a thread below this one, but the explanation for why g changes with height in the FAQ is more than sufficient to dismiss the main purpose of the topic), warping would begin to occur extremely long distances away and could explain the bendy light phenomenon.
(http://pdgusers.lbl.gov/~pslii/uabackup/source_files/image/Gravitational_lens-full.jpg)
-
So how is gravity warping light after extremely long distances relevant to bendy light, when bendy light is supposed to explain things on earth, not from millions of light years away? That and the fact that a lot of FE'ers think the sun is very small and the size of the universe is also very small (relative to RE'ers).
-
This is a great idea, except for the drawback that gravitational fields also affect matter, and we have empirical evidence that the gravitational field present at the Earth's surface is directed down.
-
This is a great idea, except for the drawback that gravitational fields also affect matter, and we have empirical evidence that the gravitational field present at the Earth's surface is directed down.
So basically, it's a great idea, except for the part where it's a horrible idea.
There would have to be giant, giant gravity wells between the earth and the sun to explain the deflection of light like this, enough that the earth's gravitational field would not be strong enough to keep us on, and also the stars would look all warped and weird like in one of those wormholes from sci-fi movies.
Face it, there is no way to consistently invoke this phenomenon, or if there is, give a precise, analytical description of it and how it would affect our view of the heavens.
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
Isn't that the same idea of String theory? Quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions?
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
Isn't that the same idea of String theory? Quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions?
Not familiar with String Theory.
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
Isn't that the same idea of String theory? Quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions?
That was the worst demonstration of understanding I've ever seen. No, string theory is not "quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions." It is the theory that 1-dimensional strings of energy (why the hell did you think it was quarks?) vibrate a different frequencies and tensions by necessity in a (9+1)/(10+1) dimensional space-time (depending on if you're following M-theory or superstring theory), where the extra dimensions are "curled" Kaluza-Klein manifolds. The extra dimensions are necessary to eliminate mathematical anomalies created by string vibrating in lower dimensional space-time, such as tachyons (particles with imaginary mass that travel faster than light-speed).
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
Isn't that the same idea of String theory? Quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions?
That was the worst demonstration of understanding I've ever seen. No, string theory is not "quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions." It is the theory that 1-dimensional strings of energy (why the hell did you think it was quarks?) vibrate a different frequencies and tensions by necessity in a (9+1)/(10+1) dimensional space-time (depending on if you're following M-theory or superstring theory), where the extra dimensions are "curled" Kaluza-Klein manifolds. The extra dimensions are necessary to eliminate mathematical anomalies created by string vibrating in lower dimensional space-time, such as tachyons (particles with imaginary mass that travel faster than light-speed).
I had String Theory explained to me by a 14 year old when I went to school with him a long time ago. As such, my information could easily be inaccurate.
But good to learn something new.
Still...
I'm almost certain that there's something about a particle and it's anti-particle appearing in our dimension randomly then annihilating each other instantly except in rare cases when they form at the event horizon of a black hole, causing one to fall in and the other to remain in the universe.
What would that be?
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
Isn't that the same idea of String theory? Quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions?
That was the worst demonstration of understanding I've ever seen. No, string theory is not "quarks popping in and out of 6 dimensions." It is the theory that 1-dimensional strings of energy (why the hell did you think it was quarks?) vibrate a different frequencies and tensions by necessity in a (9+1)/(10+1) dimensional space-time (depending on if you're following M-theory or superstring theory), where the extra dimensions are "curled" Kaluza-Klein manifolds. The extra dimensions are necessary to eliminate mathematical anomalies created by string vibrating in lower dimensional space-time, such as tachyons (particles with imaginary mass that travel faster than light-speed).
I had String Theory explained to me by a 14 year old when I went to school with him a long time ago. As such, my information could easily be inaccurate.
But good to learn something new.
Still...
I'm almost certain that there's something about a particle and it's anti-particle appearing in our dimension randomly then annihilating each other instantly except in rare cases when they form at the event horizon of a black hole, causing one to fall in and the other to remain in the universe.
What would that be?
That's Hawking Radiation caused by black hole entropy.
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
It could travel in a straight line through 5 dimensions. Just like planets travel in a straight line through 4d unless acted upon.
-
This whole discussion is pointless, as experiments have shown beeny light to be nonexistent.
/thread
-
This whole discussion is pointless, as experiments have shown beeny light to be nonexistent.
Please provide one example of such an experiment.
-
This whole discussion is pointless, as experiments have shown beeny light to be nonexistent.
Please provide one example of such an experiment.
The Bedford Levels experiment. Flat Earth with no bending of light detected.
-
The bending of light by means of gravity is explained by Einstein's General Relativity. General relativity states that gravity is a force caused by the curvature of space time, similar in shape to a funnel, with the gravitational source at the centre, at the bottom. This curvature exists in a fourth spatial dimension. As light approaches this funnel, the curvature of its path increases, as the slope of space-time also increases. This is not easily observed on earth, due to it's relativistically small mass. Only in a gravity well approaching the vertical inclination of a black hole's event horizon, can the bending of light be noticed in a small distance.
-
we have empirical evidence that the gravitational field present at the Earth's surface is directed down.
Please post this empirical evidence here.
-
I can't prove this, but my understanding of round-earth physics is that the gravity pulls towards the centre of the earth. An accelerating flat-earth would have gravity pulling along a vector opposite the acceleration of the earth. In both models, down is relative to the viewer. If your orientation was inverted of that of the rest of flat-earth, the force of gravity would pull up. From the point of view of anywhere on round-earth, gravity pulls in all directions at once. Some may think this is minor, but point of view is hugely important when considering forces and physics.
-
I can't prove this, but my understanding of round-earth physics is that the gravity pulls towards the centre of the earth. An accelerating flat-earth would have gravity pulling along a vector opposite the acceleration of the earth. In both models, down is relative to the viewer. If your orientation was inverted of that of the rest of flat-earth, the force of gravity would pull up. From the point of view of anywhere on round-earth, gravity pulls in all directions at once. Some may think this is minor, but point of view is hugely important when considering forces and physics.
In other words...
Down is the direction towards the center of the strongest source of gravity relative to you.
-
The Bedford Levels experiment. Flat Earth with no bending of light detected.
That experiment would also be evidence that the Earth is flat, which was probably not Thermal Detonator's intention. I will, however, await his verification of this before commenting further.
we have empirical evidence that the gravitational field present at the Earth's surface is directed down.
Please post this empirical evidence here.
Lift up any object with mass. Release it. In which direction does it appear to accelerate?
-
Lift up any object with mass. Release it. In which direction does it appear to accelerate?
Sorry, I can't afford one of these "any object with mass", can you send me some funds so that I can buy one and try this?
-
Lift up any object with mass. Release it. In which direction does it appear to accelerate?
Sorry, I can't afford one of these "any object with mass", can you send me some funds so that I can buy one and try this?
mmm...
Hot Troll on Troll action.
-
Sorry, I can't afford one of these "any object with mass", can you send me some funds so that I can buy one and try this?
Why don't you try the experiment using yourself as the massive object? Simply jump upwards, and when you depart contact with the ground, observe which direction you appear to accelerate relative to the ground below you.
mmm...
Hot Troll on Troll action.
Please keep low content posting out of FED.
-
This whole discussion is pointless, as experiments have shown beeny light to be nonexistent.
Please provide one example of such an experiment.
The usage of a telescope equipped with setting circles by any one of the thousands of professional and amateur astronomers (including myself) to locate specific stars is a test of the predictions of beeny light every time, and they invariably show its predictions to be false.
-
The usage of a telescope equipped with setting circles by any one of the thousands of professional and amateur astronomers (including myself) to locate specific stars is a test of the predictions of beeny light every time, and they invariably show its predictions to be false.
Please explain which predictions it tests, and provide data which shows that these predictions are false.
-
Please explain which predictions it tests, and provide data which shows that these predictions are false.
Please explain which predictions it doesn't test, and provide data which shows that these predictions are true.
-
The usage of a telescope equipped with setting circles by any one of the thousands of professional and amateur astronomers (including myself) to locate specific stars is a test of the predictions of beeny light every time, and they invariably show its predictions to be false.
Please explain which predictions it tests, and provide data which shows that these predictions are false.
Sorry, I thought you were a beeny light specialist? If so, you'll need no explanation of what predictions of beeny light are tested by setting circles - unless, of course, you don't understand what setting circles are or how they work, in which case you should piss off and read up on them. In fact, it's clear you don't understand them or else you'd realise that your request for "data" is as ridiculous as asking for data that if you let go of an object, it falls to the ground.
-
Sorry, I thought you were a beeny light specialist? If so, you'll need no explanation of what predictions of beeny light are tested by setting circles - unless, of course, you don't understand what setting circles are or how they work, in which case you should piss off and read up on them. In fact, it's clear you don't understand them or else you'd realise that your request for "data" is as ridiculous as asking for data that if you let go of an object, it falls to the ground.
I don't see any explanations or data in this post. Deriding my understanding of a subject is no way to debate, and is off topic in this forum.
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Now you have just created more problems. So light enters this "extra dimension" bends as it travels, and exits said "extra dimension" just before it hits ANYTHING THAT SEES IT! It would have to constantly be traveling in and out of this "extra dimension" in order to bend and then be seen whenever someone happened to look.
FAIL!
It could travel in a straight line through 5 dimensions. Just like planets travel in a straight line through 4d unless acted upon.
At the speed of light, even!
-
I don't see any explanations or data in this post. Deriding my understanding of a subject is no way to debate, and is off topic in this forum.
And I don't see any explanations or data in your post.
Please explain which predictions it doesn't test, and provide data which shows that these predictions are true.
-
I'm the bendy light specialist, but I won't tell you how it works because it's a secret.
-
Sorry, I thought you were a beeny light specialist? If so, you'll need no explanation of what predictions of beeny light are tested by setting circles - unless, of course, you don't understand what setting circles are or how they work, in which case you should piss off and read up on them. In fact, it's clear you don't understand them or else you'd realise that your request for "data" is as ridiculous as asking for data that if you let go of an object, it falls to the ground.
I don't see any explanations or data in this post. Deriding my understanding of a subject is no way to debate, and is off topic in this forum.
Actually, deriding your understanding of a subject is perfectly sensible in this context because it highlights how your request for "data" is meaningless with regard to setting circles. Or, if you mean deriding your understanding of beeny light, well I'm not the one who claims to be a specialist on a fictional phenomenon, now am I? Since you show no evidence of understanding either beeny light or setting circles, deriding your understanding of both of them appears to be the most sensible option.
BTW you are close to memberating again with your off topic pointing.
-
Actually, deriding your understanding of a subject is perfectly sensible in this context because it highlights how your request for "data" is meaningless with regard to setting circles. Or, if you mean deriding your understanding of beeny light, well I'm not the one who claims to be a specialist on a fictional phenomenon, now am I? Since you show no evidence of understanding either beeny light or setting circles, deriding your understanding of both of them appears to be the most sensible option.
BTW you are close to memberating again with your off topic pointing.
I still don't see any data in support of your argument.
-
Actually, deriding your understanding of a subject is perfectly sensible in this context because it highlights how your request for "data" is meaningless with regard to setting circles. Or, if you mean deriding your understanding of beeny light, well I'm not the one who claims to be a specialist on a fictional phenomenon, now am I? Since you show no evidence of understanding either beeny light or setting circles, deriding your understanding of both of them appears to be the most sensible option.
BTW you are close to memberating again with your off topic pointing.
I still don't see any data in support of your argument.
I don't recall seeing any data to support your argument that bendy light exists. If I'm wrong, please, post a link to it.
-
Maybe he has a few boxes full of notebooks that he hasn't gotten around to publishing yet.
-
I don't recall seeing any data to support your argument that bendy light exists. If I'm wrong, please, post a link to it.
When have I claimed bendy light to exist?
-
Seems a bit silly to claim to be an expert in something that doesn't exist.
-
Seems a bit silly to claim to be an expert in something that doesn't exist.
Irrelevant.
-
Seems a bit silly to claim to be an expert in something that doesn't exist.
Irrelevant.
Do you believe that bendy light exists?
-
Do you believe that bendy light exists?
My beliefs are irrelevant to the thread.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
He's just gonna tell you his beliefs are irrelevant.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
(http://)
-
That's total internal reflection, Jesus Christ...
Do you have any evidence that the sun appearing to sink below the horizon and the "sinking ship effect" are caused by bendy light?
-
That's total internal reflection, Jesus Christ...
So, what do you assume by the term 'bendy light'?
-
That's total internal reflection, Jesus Christ...
So, what do you assume by the term 'bendy light'?
Light bending by any means other than what we can explain with modern science (reflection, refraction, space-time distortion, etc.)
-
That's total internal reflection, Jesus Christ...
So, what do you assume by the term 'bendy light'?
Light bending by any means other than what we can explain with modern science (reflection, refraction, space-time distortion, etc.)
Oh, then it doesn't exist.
-
I'm well aware that many self-proclaimed FET believers do not believe in bendy light, however I am curious as to weather or not any one who does has any evidence for the aforementioned "bendy light".
-
I'm well aware that many self-proclaimed FET believers do not believe in bendy light, however I am curious as to weather or not any one who does has any evidence for the aforementioned "bendy light".
Pray tell, who is in charge of proclaiming someone a Flat or Round Earth believer?
-
I'm well aware that many self-proclaimed FET believers do not believe in bendy light, however I am curious as to weather or not any one who does has any evidence for the aforementioned "bendy light".
Pray tell, who is in charge of proclaiming someone a Flat or Round Earth believer?
Themselves, or whoever hands out that fancy "Flat Earth Believer" tag.
-
I'm well aware that many self-proclaimed FET believers do not believe in bendy light, however I am curious as to weather or not any one who does has any evidence for the aforementioned "bendy light".
Pray tell, who is in charge of proclaiming someone a Flat or Round Earth believer?
Themselves, or whoever hands out that fancy "Flat Earth Believer" tag.
So, what was the need of the redundant specification 'self-proclaimed'?
-
I'm well aware that many self-proclaimed FET believers do not believe in bendy light, however I am curious as to weather or not any one who does has any evidence for the aforementioned "bendy light".
Pray tell, who is in charge of proclaiming someone a Flat or Round Earth believer?
Themselves, or whoever hands out that fancy "Flat Earth Believer" tag.
So, what was the need of the redundant specification 'self-proclaimed'?
Trollbait, apparently.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
Glad we can now dispense with that pesky topic.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
Then perhaps you should change the "Bendy Light specialist" caption in your profile to something more appropriate.
-
Actually, the noobs in this thread refer to something which has no existence in the physical world. Hence, we don't know what they're talking about. Sort of like the Philosopher's stone.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
Wow. All that effort wasted. :( Let me know if you need a hug.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
Wow. All that effort wasted. :( Let me know if you need a hug.
At least he admitted it. He could've come up with some troll-shit response out of desperation.
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
Wow. All that effort wasted. :( Let me know if you need a hug.
At least he admitted it. He could've come up with some troll-shit response out of desperation.
I've never claimed to have any evidence for bendy light. Why are you acting like this is some kind of victory on your part?
-
Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?
No.
Wow. All that effort wasted. :( Let me know if you need a hug.
At least he admitted it. He could've come up with some troll-shit response out of desperation.
I've never claimed to have any evidence for bendy light. Why are you acting like this is some kind of victory on your part?
I'm not; I'm just showing my appreciation. It's nice to hear people admit they have no proof of something.. Once again, you could've back-peddled, diverted the subject, or any number of things that a troll would've done.
-
I'm not; I'm just showing my appreciation. It's nice to hear people admit they have no proof of something.. Once again, you could've back-peddled, diverted the subject, or any number of things that a troll would've done.
I always answer people's questions, provided they are relevant to the thread. People just seem to have an unfortunate habit of asking the wrong questions.
-
I've never claimed to have any evidence for bendy light. Why are you acting like this is some kind of victory on your part?
orly? Then all your lame posts on the subject have been a complete waste of time. Allow me to demonstrate your fail.
bendy light causes faraway objects, even at altitude, to be invisible, so such measures are indeed necessary on a Flat Earth
Obviously, this is evidence that light will not bend inside an interferometer, probably due to quantum effects. When you are not making observations with the interferometer, the light will bend.
Serious FE'ers only. Why does the sun set?
Bendy light, though I'd consider evidence for Rowbothian perspective.
.
.
.
You do realise that instead of being a crap internet troll you could have been doing something productive like spilling your seed into yesterdays socks?
-
All those quotes are just spouting off possible explanations with nothing to back them up, same old same old. To be fair, I'm not sure that he has ever claimed to have evidence to support the bendy light theory.
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
So, no.
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
So, no.
Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
So, no.
Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.
Why?
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
So, no.
Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.
Why?
Because it does not make any sense to discuss something as though it were true without any evidence for it.
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
So, no.
Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.
Why?
Because it does not make any sense to discuss something as though it were true without any evidence for it.
The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.
-
So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?
Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?
No.
So, no.
Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.
Why?
Because it does not make any sense to discuss something as though it were true without any evidence for it.
The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.
Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun. Can you provide evidence that light bending by unexplained means is a better explanation than the RE model?
-
The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.
Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun.
[/quote]
Prove it.
-
The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.
Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun.
Prove it.
[/quote]
I'm not here to teach you basic astronomy.
-
The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.
Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun.
Prove it.
I'm not here to teach you basic astronomy.
[/quote]
lol.
-
This thread is a perfect example of how flat guys just ignore anything they find uncomfortable, such as how pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved, and they have just ignored it and continued the thread. Failslam.
-
pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved
You have done no such thing.
-
pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved
You have done no such thing.
Incorrect.
-
What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?
-
What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?
Read the FAQ. For once, the FAQ will answer a question posed by a RE'er.
-
What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?
Read the FAQ. For once, the FAQ will answer a question posed by a RE'er.
The thing about the FAQ is that it is alternate explanations to what we observe.
No evidence there.
-
pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved
You have done no such thing.
See? Quod erat demonstrandum.
-
pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved
You have done no such thing.
Please provide evidence for this outlandish claim.
-
What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?
What is so difficult about posting in the relevant place? Like what is the core of your incompetence?
-
What is so difficult about posting in the relevant place? Like what is the core of your incompetence?
Seems relevant to me. He's promoting debate about FET by questioning the provision of core evidence.
Oh I get it your being an internets tough guy for the noob. Carry on.
-
If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. :P on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.
-
If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. :P on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.
For the love of God, lurk moar.
-
If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. :P on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.
This is making some exciting points and could further FE understanding as we know it.
-
light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.
Then again the Earth could be sphere. Since you've presented no evidence of more than four dimensions, since you've shown no reason to expect that matter when in the form of light should have access to higher dimensions that it doesn't when in the form of matter, and since the theory of bendy light is internally inconsistent, it would seem that you're doing a good job of convincing us that the Earth is a sphere.
-
If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. :P on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.
For the love of God, lurk moar.
Bravo, just ignore anything that comes too close to your comfort zone. It is Rule #1 for any form of trolling.