The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Son of Orospu on April 11, 2014, 07:35:15 AM
-
It is a nice way to say, "I can make stuff up and you can't prove me wrong."
Discuss.
-
Yea, i always thought that was an odd job title too. But does this really have anything to do with FET?
-
Except when they make this possible...
(http://)
-
It is a nice way to say, "I can make stuff up and you can't prove me wrong."
Do you mean stuff like Relativity and Quantum Physics which are among the most tested theories around? Or were you referring to stuff like Universal Acceleration, bendy light and other FE made up theoretical physics?
-
It is a nice way to say, "I can make stuff up and you can't prove me wrong."
Discuss.
You know it is not like that. Say what you want to say about them.
-
They can make anything up and you can't prove them wrong.
-
They can make anything up and you can't prove them wrong.
It still does not work that way. They again.
-
If I recall, there were several experiments done to validate Einstein's theories. In fact, had the predictions not been observed, it would have proven him wrong.
In 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington took pictures of stars behind the eclipse of the sun. He then measured the position of these stars and the light from them bent in accordance with Einstein's General Relativity. Had these star positions not changed, Einstein would have been proven wrong.
Therefore, your statement is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919)
-
How far off were the stars on these black and white photos? Were they barely measurable?
-
They can make anything up and you can't prove them wrong.
Incorrect.
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php (http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php)
-
markjo is actually trying to be an FE'er for a change. Bravo markjo.
-
How far off were the stars on these black and white photos? Were they barely measurable?
It does not matter exactly how much. He presented in his 1920 paper announcing its success, confirming Einstein's theory that light "bends". It was accepted because other astronomers reviewed it. If you have a degree in astronomy you can evaluate and have a valid opinion.
-
Bendy light has been proven to be true. Another victory for the FES.
-
Bendy light has been proven to be true. Another victory for the FES.
Only around large massive gravity object. It will not bend is a few miles over the surface of the earth. There is a big difference.
-
Another victory for the FES.
-
Another victory for the FES.
Not really. What did your FE theory had to say about that?
-
Light does not travel in straight lines. It bends. This is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
-
Light does not travel in straight lines. It bends. This is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
But lemme guess, you can't explain why?
-
You said you were going to guess, and then you asked a question instead. Perhaps you don't understand how guessing works?
-
Light does not travel in straight lines. It bends. This is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
We are talking about two different things. Light will bend in a medium. It will bend in a medium like water, clouds, glass. it is called refraction. Here is the definition.
Refraction is essentially a surface phenomenon. The phenomenon is mainly in governance to the law of conservation of energy and momentum. Due to change of medium, the phase velocity of the wave is changed but its frequency remains constant.
What was proven in the 1920 test was the light in NO medium like space can be bent by gravity alone.
-
markjo is actually trying to be an FE'er for a change. Bravo markjo.
Incorrect. I'm just pointing out that the premise of your OP is nonsense.
-
You said you were going to guess, and then you asked a question instead. Perhaps you don't understand how guessing works?
no, it was a guess, the question mark was awaiting confirmation
-
Guessing does not usually involve question marks, unless I am mistaken.
-
Guessing does not usually involve question marks, unless I am mistaken.
I donno, i see question marks over your head every time i read a post from ya, so... :D
-
Are you saying i am guessing about something?
See, that was a question and involved a question mark.
-
Are you saying i am guessing about something?
See, that was a question and involved a question mark.
Maybe you're just not used to the nuances of human interaction, see normally, a guess comes along with an implied implication of knowing if the guess was correct.
-
Maybe you just don't know how guesses work.
-
Light does not travel in straight lines. It bends. This is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
Your ignorance does not constitute evidence for you argument.
-
Your ignorance is comical.
-
Your ignorance is comical.
Did the military teach you that?
-
Did your chemical degree teach you anything?
-
Did your chemical degree teach you anything?
The degree, no, the classes, yes.
So why again does light bend? How does light know which direction to bend? Why is theoretical physics bad but Zeteticism is good?
-
It is a nice way to say, "I can make stuff up and you can't prove me wrong."
Discuss.
Twin Quasar. Theoretical Physics found to be REAL AS F*CK. Gravitational lensing. Seeing the same quasar twice.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/rvc9cp.jpg)
x2
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2ic47pt.jpg)
-
Did your chemical degree teach you anything?
The degree, no, the classes, yes.
So why again does light bend? How does light know which direction to bend? Why is theoretical physics bad but Zeteticism is good?
Are you saying that diffraction is not real?
-
Did your chemical degree teach you anything?
The degree, no, the classes, yes.
So why again does light bend? How does light know which direction to bend? Why is theoretical physics bad but Zeteticism is good?
Are you saying that diffraction is not real?
Don't ignore my twin quasar post.
-
Light does not travel in straight lines. It bends. This is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
The mass of the SUN can barely bend the light of the stars behind it, a few arcseconds (or arcminutes, idr) at best. The earth, whose mass isn't even 10^-5 that of the sun, can do less.
-
Another victory for the FES.
you remind me of this guy:
Iraq's Comical Ali (http://#)
-
Did your chemical degree teach you anything?
The degree, no, the classes, yes.
So why again does light bend? How does light know which direction to bend? Why is theoretical physics bad but Zeteticism is good?
Are you saying that diffraction is not real?
Answer the questions before you ask a question.
-
Your ignorance is comical.
You don't even understand a line of sight.
-
Light does not travel in straight lines. It bends. This is what we have been trying to tell you all along.
Actually, light does travel in a straight line. It's space-time that bends.
-
Does light not diffract? Does that not mean it is bending?
-
Does light not diffract? Does that not mean it is bending?
Diffraction is not the same as refraction, refraction is not the same as gravitational lensing, and 'bendy light' (as required for any FEH) is, by necessity, completely contrary to all of these other known phenomena.
-
So, the scientists are lying about light diffracting now?
-
So, the scientists are lying about light diffracting now?
Tell us what scientist have said.
-
Are you now claiming that scientists don't believe in light diffraction?
-
Nobody said light doesn't diffract jroa. It's just all these different known phenomena that cause light waves to change direction are not anything like what's described on this website as bendy light.
-
Changing air density causes diffraction. Or, are you now claiming that the air density is homogeneous?
-
Changing air density causes diffraction. Or, are you now claiming that the air density is homogeneous?
This doesn't seem to be a coherent response. Are you drunk?
-
I am sorry if I used big words. Let me know which ones confused you and I will try to define them for you.
-
You are saying that I am claiming that air is homogenous.
I never said that and you are making stuff up again.
If anything, your bendy light would be homogenous.
-
Jroa, I didn't understand what you meant by diffraction. Can you please explain precisely what you mean by diffraction, and is it the same as the phenomena explained as diffractino by Wikipedia?
-
It means that light does not travel in straight lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction)
-
The premise for bendy light is that light naturally bends. Diffraction is a property of light when it encounters an obstacle.
Refraction is when light changes it's path because of a change in medium. So you clearly meant to use refraction in this thread. For future arguments, please use the proper words.
-
It means that light does not travel in straight lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction)
How does diffraction apply in the FE model?
-
Only around large massive gravity object. It will not bend is a few miles over the surface of the earth. There is a big difference.
So the Earth is not a 'large gravity object'?
-
It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right. I am just saying light can and does bend.
-
It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right. I am just saying light can and does bend.
Wow, good job.
-
Are you now claiming that scientists don't believe in light diffraction?
Are you now saying my cat is made of cheese? Are you saying scientists think I'm on fire?
Or am I just making strawman arguments in a tedious passive aggressive manner?
-
You would be made of fire if Phlogiston Theory is proven to be true, would you not?
-
You would be made of fire if Phlogiston Theory is proven to be true, would you not?
No. And Phlogiston theory was falsified quite a while ago. Do keep up.
-
It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right. I am just saying light can and does bend.
When?
-
Diffraction. Are purposely acting like you can't read?
-
Refraction on an average day, and gravitational lensing (if the earth were massive enough to cause a significant amount of it), cause light to bend back towards the surface of the earth. If the earth were truly flat, this would create the appearance of living in a bowl. Also, there would be no clearly defined horizon; things would simply fade as distance increased.
'Bendy light', as required by all FEH's, demands that light always bend away from the surface of the earth at a rate of ~1° per 111km. This would only account for the appearance of a horizon, and 'sinking' objects though. To account for the sun appearing where it does would require light to bend in a very convoluted manner, and not just away from the surface, but horizontally (left and right) as well.
-
Refraction on an average day, and gravitational lensing (if the earth were massive enough to cause a significant amount of it), cause light to bend back towards the surface of the earth. If the earth were truly flat, this would create the appearance of living in a bowl. Also, there would be no clearly defined horizon; things would simply fade as distance increased.
'Bendy light', as required by all FEH's, demands that light always bend away from the surface of the earth at a rate of ~1° per 111km. This would only account for the appearance of a horizon, and 'sinking' objects though. To account for the sun appearing where it does would require light to bend in a very convoluted manner, and not just away from the surface, but horizontally (left and right) as well.
This is exactly right. I've seen Tintagel's and Jroa's explanation of what bendy light is like.
We've never observed any phenomenon remotely like it
-
It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right. I am just saying light can and does bend.
Are you saying that diffraction explains FE sunsets? ???
-
It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right. I am just saying light can and does bend.
You are making this up. A few feet from where to where? Light will refract because there is a medium to do so. Just like reading glasses.
-
Lite can bend over just a few millimeters in a lens or a prism. Yet, it can not bend over miles on the Earth?
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
-
Lite can bend over just a few millimeters in a lens or a prism. Yet, it can not bend over miles on the Earth?
If you send light 90 degrees to a glass window it will not bend. Same applies to air. In certain conditions it will bend but by most part it will not.
-
Jroa, it is very easy to prove theoretical physicists wrong. Get some accepted theory and make an experiment that violates the theory and can not be explained. Where is your problem?
-
Lite can bend over just a few millimeters in a lens or a prism. Yet, it can not bend over miles on the Earth?
The bending of light is generally measured in terms of angular measurement, not distance measurement.
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?
Which proven scientific principle do you disagree with?
-
Refraction has been proven.
-
Refraction has been proven.
However, Electromagnetic Acceleration (A.K.A. Bendy Light) and Universal Acceleration not been proven, thereby showing that FE'ers are no better than RE theoretical physicists.
-
Gravitational lensing was proven a long time ago. Perhaps the gravitational part can be replaced with UA, since the affect is the same.
-
Gravitational lensing was proven a long time ago. Perhaps the gravitational part can be replaced with UA, since the affect is the same.
Perhaps it could, if the math supported the observations. Have you done the math, by any chance?
-
People make the math fit their model.
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?
Are you saying that the density layers always line up so that the observations are predictable?
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?
Are you saying that the density layers always line up so that the observations are predictable?
Are you saying they don't?
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?
Let's put it this way: You couldn't get your desired effect even if the air had the refraction index of ice...
-
Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?
Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?
Are you saying that the density layers always line up so that the observations are predictable?
Are you saying they don't?
Can you produce your evidence that they do?
-
Refraction has been proven.
Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.
-
Refraction has been proven.
Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.
Actually air density, though not as much as pressure and temperature and humidity, actually do affect these phenomena. They are nowhere near the effects needed for the FE bullshit though. Here is some information about it:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk (http://www.atoptics.co.uk)
http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/6-4/optics.htm (http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/6-4/optics.htm)
-
People make the math fit their model.
The math is the model. The math has to fit the data.
-
Refraction has been proven.
Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.
Are you saying that light does not refract when it goes from air to water?
-
For Jroa
(http://optics.byu.edu/images/Cover.jpg)
Optics Textbook (http://"http://optics.byu.edu/BYUOpticsBook_2013.pdf)
Because you have the most questions
-
Refraction has been proven.
Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.
Are you saying that light does not refract when it goes from air to water?
Straight in and out it does not. It will bend if it goes in an angle. Put a small a object in water and look at it from the very top. It will not change shape. If you look at it from an angle it will look different.
-
For Jroa
(http://optics.byu.edu/images/Cover.jpg)
Optics Textbook (http://"http://optics.byu.edu/BYUOpticsBook_2013.pdf)
Because you have the most questions
At least he started to use refraction instead of diffraction.
-
For Jroa
(http://optics.byu.edu/images/Cover.jpg)
Optics Textbook (http://"http://optics.byu.edu/BYUOpticsBook_2013.pdf)
Because you have the most questions
At least he started to use refraction instead of diffraction.
I was referring to diffraction because it can happen over a small distance. People were saying that light cannot bend, and I pointed out that it can bend over a few feet or inches with diffraction. Why don't you actually read posts?
-
Here's a page which covers the differences between diffraction and refraction (it also covers reflection, with a handy little picture of what happens when waves reflect off a curved surface such as a parabolic dish, but that relates to another topic): http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Reflection,-Refraction,-and-Diffraction (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Reflection,-Refraction,-and-Diffraction)
"Refraction of waves involves a change in the direction of waves as they pass from one medium to another."
and
"...diffraction involves a change in direction of waves as they pass through an opening or around a barrier in their path."
Hopefully we can all now use these terms correctly.
-
Thank you, Scintific Method, for helping me prove that light does, in fact, bend.
-
Thank you, Scintific Method, for helping me prove that light does, in fact, bend.
You're welcome. Just keep in mind that refraction is not the same as 'bendy light', which is an essential part of any FE hypothesis, but which also has serious flaws (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58042.0#.U0z4dVcrdVA).
-
Light bends for a lot of reasons.
-
Light bends for a lot of reasons.
We all agree it does. The discussion is in what condition and how much.
-
Light bends for a lot of reasons.
What are these reasons, and how are they relevant to a flat earth theory?
-
Light bends for a lot of reasons.
What are these reasons, and how are they relevant to a flat earth theory?
I asked him to present his mathematical and physical model for his "bendy light". We'll see just how much of an uneducated fool he really is.
-
I can fling RE measurements all over the place just like you can. However, they are not really proof and are really easy to find on the internet. Maybe you can come up with something original?
-
I can fling RE measurements all over the place just like you can. However, they are not really proof and are really easy to find on the internet. Maybe you can come up with something original?
Originality has no effect on truth.
If 10 trillion people claim 1+1=2, and you test it yourself and it turns out that yes, 1+1 does in fact equal 2, it doesn't matter if it is "original" or not.
Facts are facts.
-
I can fling RE measurements all over the place just like you can. However, they are not really proof and are really easy to find on the internet. Maybe you can come up with something original?
Please post some FE measurements between some capital cities, or a link to them.
-
What if 2+2=5?
2+2=5 Proof (http://#)
-
What if 2+2=5?
2+2=5 Proof (http://#)
I sure hope you don't really believe that.
-
What if 2+2=5?
2+2=5 Proof (http://#)
I sure hope you don't really believe that.
It was shown that his math was wrong.
-
What if 2+2=5?
All numbers equal all other numbers
The following example uses division by zero to "prove" that 2 = 1, but can be modified to prove that any number equals any other number.
1. Let a and b be equal non-zero quantities
a = b
2. Multiply through by a
a^2 = ab
3. Subtract b^2
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
4. Factor both sides
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
5. Divide out (a - b)
a + b = b
6. Observing that a = b
b + b = b
7. Combine like terms on the left
2b = b
8. Divide by the non-zero b
2 = 1
Q.E.D.[5]
The fallacy is in line 5: the progression from line 4 to line 5 involves division by a − b, which is zero since a equals b. Since division by zero is undefined, the argument is invalid.
-
Are you saying that all numbers equal other numbers, or that they don't?
-
Are you saying that all numbers equal other numbers, or that they don't?
There is no need to jump to random conclusions. The video is simply wrong. Nothing more.
-
Are you saying that all numbers equal other numbers, or that they don't?
I'm saying that you can use mathematical fallacies to "prove" anything you want, but that doesn't make you right.
-
What jroa does not understand is that if I send him 1 dollar and he sends me 10,000 dollars, it is one and the same. This is too much for a FEer to understand.
-
1 dollar and 10,000 dollars are the same thing?
-
Are you saying that all numbers equal other numbers, or that they don't?
Well at least YOUR pattern is obvious: use rhetorics when you've been put against a wall...
-
You put me against the wall how?
-
You put me against the wall how?
Do you really want me to quote every single rhetorical question you posted instead of answering a question at hand, since I made my account? I'm pretty sure there are over 100 since then...
You're not answering questions because you know you have no real answers. Apart from some fantasies which you cannot prove, you're empty, you feel threatened when somebody asks you a question for which you have no answer, or when somebody asks you to present a mathematical model for your bullshit, not necessarily a model made by you, but by anybody else. Under this pressure (backed against a wall), instead of admitting that you're wrong, you pose rhetorical, and at some times flat out stupid questions, in hopes of derailing the conversation.
Basic psychology.
-
How are you threatening me? Are you trying to say that you are intimidating? I can guarantee that you are not.
-
How are you threatening me? Are you trying to say that you are intimidating? I can guarantee that you are not.
Not only by me, you feel threatened by everybody that asks you to present your evidence, hence your rhetorical question defense mechanism.
-
Please give examples. I can not find them.
-
Are you saying that all numbers equal other numbers, or that they don't?
-jroa, when given proof that the video about "2+2=5" is plain wrong.
Are you claiming that light can travel infinitely through the air?
-jroa, when told that ~50km of air is not enough for it to totally block off sunlight.
People say that bendy light does not exist all the time. They claim that light only travels in straight lines. Are you now accepting that bendy light exists?
-jroa, when explained (with 3 or 4 physics articles explaining refraction, reflection and diffraction in the whole thread) that what would be needed for light to bend the way he needs it to be (in order to prove his "perspective") is impossible.
How far off were the stars on these black and white photos? Were they barely measurable?
-jroa, when being proven that theoretical physics is not, as he said, "a nice way to say, "I can make stuff up and you can't prove me wrong." "
Mathematical evidence of what? Pythagorean theorem? You are a very confusing person.
-jroa, when asked to present a mathematical model that supports a flat earth, knowing that there isn't any, he played the fool.
Need any more?
-
Thanks for summing things up for us.
-
Thanks for summing things up for us.
Indeed, at least you're not denying your psychological defensive mechanism, the rhetorics.
-
You said you were going to guess, and then you asked a question instead. Perhaps you don't understand how guessing works?
Perhaps FE'ers try avoiding tricky questions with answers like this...
-
There are many people who hold 'Theoretical Physics' in contempt. Millions/billions spent on elaborate wasteful projects that in the end, discover... nothing, or what someone else claims they could have told them for very little.
Listen to what these gentlemen think of 'theoretical science'. I know they are religious, but if you listen to Rupert Sheldrake, he'll tell you that 'science' IS based on 'religion', if you go back and check the current theme's origins.
(http://)
-
Thanks for summing things up for us.
So, will you stop doing it then, and actually recognize when you have been beaten?
-
Who beat me and how?
-
Who beat me and how?
Every Round Earther who posted scientific proof that you cannot argue with because it is objective fact.
So...all of us.
-
What? Who, what, why, how? You are just making stuff up now.
-
What? Who, what, why, how? You are just making stuff up now.
No, jroa, we are reporting the truth.
YOU are making up stuff.
-
What? Who, what, why, how? You are just making stuff up now.
Verified distances, satellites.
-
Who beat me and how?
You mostly beat yourself, when you repeatedly failed to gather the mathematical model form your "mountain of evidence".