The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: guv on September 22, 2014, 04:03:32 AM
-
You just have these guys points for this bit of waky wiki.
Distance to the sun
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.
Wish I could bend numbers to my will like that, maybe I could get rich.
-
Well, to be fair, it is the result you should get if the Earth were flat.
-
Unfortunately, that isn't even close to the result that Rowbotham got when he tried a similar experiment in England.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_99 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_99)
-
That experiment (along with the Bedford level experiment) necessarily relies that light travels in a straight line.
Why does the acceleration of light suddenly become a non-factor for such important scientific experiments?
-
Unfortunately, that isn't even close to the result that Rowbotham got when he tried a similar experiment in England.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_99 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_99)
That was an interesting read. Thanks for the link.
I doubt if the experiment were repeated competently with at least twentieth-century instruments and timekeeping the results would be the same. The reported 3-degree difference in the measured altitude angle is much larger than one would expect for locations only 50 miles apart, and, using his results, places the sun directly overhead in central France. Did anyone on the Northern Mediterranean Coast notice the Sun being north of them at midday that summer? It seems like we would have heard of it from someone if it had been there.
Presuming experimental error in Mr. Rowbotham's measurements and using a more realistic 0.7 degree difference in altitude for these locations (Stellarium predicts 60.0 and 60.7 degrees to the bottom of the sun at culmination from the two cited locations on July 13 this year), and using the Law of Sines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_sines) we get 3544 and 3569 miles slant-line distances to the bottom of the sun from Brighton and London, respectively. Multiplying 3569 miles by the sine of 60 degrees (altitude angle from London) gives a height of 3091 miles above the presumed-flat earth, and 3569 miles by the cosine of 60 degrees gives a horizontal distance of 1785 miles from london to the point on the flat earth directly under the sun, somewhere near the middle of modern-day Algeria. Hey, at least it's on the right continent!
I recognize that Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/) uses Heliocentric and spheroidal-earth models, but, without going into whether or not those are truly correct, it consistently produces very accurate values for the apparent positions of celestial objects. It should be easy enough to measure this for yourselves if you don't want to rely on a simulation.
And, indeed, as already noted, there is no compensation applied in the experiment as described for the "bendy light" necessary to produce a sunset. The flat-earth model as described is terribly inconsistent with itself. Thoughts, anyone?
So, let's see... one model produces results that routinely check out against actual observations while another, considering experiments designed and described by its author, is not even consistent with itself. Which would you choose, and why?
-
That experiment (along with the Bedford level experiment) necessarily relies that light travels in a straight line.
Why does the acceleration of light suddenly become a non-factor for such important scientific experiments?
Because it can be easily accounted for, which Rowbotham utterly failed to do.
-
Light does not accelerate. Photons travel at c always! Now changing from one medium to another they do change speed, say from air to water, but the change is essentially instantaneous. And I am quite certain that is not what you mean.
-
Light does not accelerate. Photons travel at c always! Now changing from one medium to another they do change speed, say from air to water, but the change is essentially instantaneous. And I am quite certain that is not what you mean.
I think you mean that light changes velocity when passing through mediums of different density, but not speed. You do know the difference between speed and velocity, right? Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light)
-
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
-
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
-
Honestly I just don't like how you quite often use slightly wrong terminology either consciously, to try to prove your point by "blurring" the explanations, or by accident.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
That is a completely different matter. The value described universally in physics as c(the speed of light in vacuum) is constant, as it is pretty much one of the "primal" units, used to define other units. The speed of light in different mediums(?) is not the same, but it is consistent for each medium. What other variables did you mean?
-
Honestly I just don't like how you quite often use slightly wrong terminology either consciously, to try to prove your point by "blurring" the explanations, or by accident.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
That is a completely different matter. The value described universally in physics as c(the speed of light in vacuum) is constant, as it is pretty much one of the "primal" units, used to define other units. The speed of light in different mediums(?) is not the same, but it is consistent for each medium. What other variables did you mean?
So, is the speed of light a variable or a constant?
-
Honestly I just don't like how you quite often use slightly wrong terminology either consciously, to try to prove your point by "blurring" the explanations, or by accident.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
That is a completely different matter. The value described universally in physics as c(the speed of light in vacuum) is constant, as it is pretty much one of the "primal" units, used to define other units. The speed of light in different mediums(?) is not the same, but it is consistent for each medium. What other variables did you mean?
So, is the speed of light a variable or a constant?
In general? No. In any specified situation? Yes. It's a rather sh*tty question, like "do cars have four wheels?". I say "yes", you show me a car with 6 wheels. I say "no", you show me three cars with four wheels each. Or "is water wet?". Yes, it is, as long as it is between its melting and boiling point. Is light speed constant? Yes, as long as it doesn't change medium.
-
Honestly I just don't like how you quite often use slightly wrong terminology either consciously, to try to prove your point by "blurring" the explanations, or by accident.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
That is a completely different matter. The value described universally in physics as c(the speed of light in vacuum) is constant, as it is pretty much one of the "primal" units, used to define other units. The speed of light in different mediums(?) is not the same, but it is consistent for each medium. What other variables did you mean?
So, is the speed of light a variable or a constant?
In general? No. In any specified situation? Yes. It's a rather sh*tty question, like "do cars have four wheels?". I say "yes", you show me a car with 6 wheels. I say "no", you show me three cars with four wheels each. Or "is water wet?". Yes, it is, as long as it is between its melting and boiling point. Is light speed constant? Yes, as long as it doesn't change medium.
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is. You are the one who made the claim that the speed of light is always constant. I simply proved you wrong.
-
Honestly I just don't like how you quite often use slightly wrong terminology either consciously, to try to prove your point by "blurring" the explanations, or by accident.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
That is a completely different matter. The value described universally in physics as c(the speed of light in vacuum) is constant, as it is pretty much one of the "primal" units, used to define other units. The speed of light in different mediums(?) is not the same, but it is consistent for each medium. What other variables did you mean?
So, is the speed of light a variable or a constant?
In general? No. In any specified situation? Yes. It's a rather sh*tty question, like "do cars have four wheels?". I say "yes", you show me a car with 6 wheels. I say "no", you show me three cars with four wheels each. Or "is water wet?". Yes, it is, as long as it is between its melting and boiling point. Is light speed constant? Yes, as long as it doesn't change medium.
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is. You are the one who made the claim that the speed of light is always constant. I simply proved you wrong.
Sorry, but it was you who started with wrong statement.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
This is wrong. c in physics is not "speed of light". It is a constant with value of speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, while the speed of light is variable, c is constant. This is another case of what I described a bit earlier. You argue with absolute confidence something which flat out wrong, even by definition. I am just not sure whether it was by your misunderstanding of what c means when talking about speed, or if it was deliberate.
-
Honestly I just don't like how you quite often use slightly wrong terminology either consciously, to try to prove your point by "blurring" the explanations, or by accident.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
Ultimate LOL :D
"The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time."
So, you contend that the speed of light is constant and does not change?
That is a completely different matter. The value described universally in physics as c(the speed of light in vacuum) is constant, as it is pretty much one of the "primal" units, used to define other units. The speed of light in different mediums(?) is not the same, but it is consistent for each medium. What other variables did you mean?
So, is the speed of light a variable or a constant?
In general? No. In any specified situation? Yes. It's a rather sh*tty question, like "do cars have four wheels?". I say "yes", you show me a car with 6 wheels. I say "no", you show me three cars with four wheels each. Or "is water wet?". Yes, it is, as long as it is between its melting and boiling point. Is light speed constant? Yes, as long as it doesn't change medium.
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is. You are the one who made the claim that the speed of light is always constant. I simply proved you wrong.
Sorry, but it was you who started with wrong statement.
Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
This is wrong. c in physics is not "speed of light". It is a constant with value of speed of light in vacuum. Therefore, while the speed of light is variable, c is constant.
So, are you finally admitting that the speed of light is not a constant?
-
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is.
If by "debate" you mean "desperately trying to divert the thread away from the OP by making pedantic arguments ", then I think we are starting to understand what you mean by it.
Now, why don't you address the OP or Alpha2Omega's excellent post?
-
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is.
If by "debate" you mean "desperately trying to divert the thread away from the OP by making pedantic arguments ", then I think we are starting to understand what you mean by it.
Now, why don't you address the OP or Alpha2Omega's excellent post?
Are you now trying to claim that the speed of light is constant?
-
The speed of light is constant. Every experiment has shown so, no experiment has shown otherwise.
-
Then, why do scientists believe that the speed of light changes, as I have already demonstrated?
-
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is.
If by "debate" you mean "desperately trying to divert the thread away from the OP by making pedantic arguments ", then I think we are starting to understand what you mean by it.
Now, why don't you address the OP or Alpha2Omega's excellent post?
Are you now trying to claim that the speed of light is constant?
No. I did not claim it is the same in all cases. It is constant in any given situation, it only differs depending on what material does light travel through. But it doesn't make your statement about c any less wrong. And as Jimmy said, it is not related at all to what was pointed out earlier by Alpha2Omega. And by the way, I apologise for accidentally helping you derail another thread...
EA would either have to act vertically and therefore change the local speed of light, which is not possible, or have to act exactly perpendicular to each ray of light(to conserve speed, but change velocity), that is, to NOT act in vertical direction.
Now what is your take at why is "bendy light" only taken into consideration when it is useful, and omitted in other cases? If its effect is strong enough to cause sunsets and hide stuff behind horizon, it is definitely not trivial enough to be forgotten when doing any calculations.
-
You seem to finally be understanding what a debate is.
If by "debate" you mean "desperately trying to divert the thread away from the OP by making pedantic arguments ", then I think we are starting to understand what you mean by it.
Now, why don't you address the OP or Alpha2Omega's excellent post?
Are you now trying to claim that the speed of light is constant?
Where did I mention the speed of light? You are all over the place today. I'll repeat:
Now, why don't you address the OP or Alpha2Omega's excellent post?
-
Then, why do scientists believe that the speed of light changes, as I have already demonstrated?
Are you claiming that you've personally "demonstrated" using your own methodology that the speed of light is a variable, or are you simply parroting what you've heard other people say jroa? Flat earthers are constantly complaining that round earthers haven't done various experiments themselves, and thus their claims are worthless as an argument because they're just quoting third parties.
So... are you quoting an accredited scientific source, or have you done the research yourself? And if the former, why is it that you're more than happy to accept at face value some scientific theories but reject outright others? How exactly do you differentiate?
-
Then, why do scientists believe that the speed of light changes, as I have already demonstrated?
Are you claiming that you've personally "demonstrated" using your own methodology that the speed of light is a variable, or are you simply parroting what you've heard other people say jroa? Flat earthers are constantly complaining that round earthers haven't done various experiments themselves, and thus their claims are worthless as an argument because they're just quoting third parties.
So... are you quoting an accredited scientific source, or have you done the research yourself? And if the former, why is it that you're more than happy to accept at face value some scientific theories but reject outright others? How exactly do you differentiate?
Actually, he cited a Wikipedia article. For all we know, he could have written or modified that article himself.
-
Then, why do scientists believe that the speed of light changes, as I have already demonstrated?
From your source... The first sentence:
Variable speed of light (VSL) is a hypothesis that states that the speed of light, usually denoted by c, may be a function of space and time.
For your edification:
hy·poth·e·sis
noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
: an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion
You may have demonstrated that some scientists believe that c varies, but there is no experimental evidence to support it and until there is, it literally does not matter what scientists think. The evidence is what matters.
-
You may have demonstrated that some scientists believe that c varies, but there is no experimental evidence to support it and until there is, it literally does not matter what scientists think. The evidence is what matters.
Sort of like how many scientists have many different theories about gravity?
-
You may have demonstrated that some scientists believe that c varies, but there is no experimental evidence to support it and until there is, it literally does not matter what scientists think. The evidence is what matters.
Sort of like how many scientists have many different theories about gravity?
Sort of like how there can be many different theories about why the puppy died, which doesn't change the fact that the puppy is DEAD.
And, regarding the question about you being very picky as to why use "bendy light":
Silence will fall, when the question is asked.
-
You may have demonstrated that some scientists believe that c varies, but there is no experimental evidence to support it and until there is, it literally does not matter what scientists think. The evidence is what matters.
Sort of like how many scientists have many different theories about gravity?
Well not really. There is currently one encompassing theory of gravity, GR, which works on all scales except the quantum. The Newtonian theory is still applicable on most scales, and can be easily derived from GR, so it is not really a different theory than GR, just a simplification.
There are many hypotheses for quantum gravity, but they are just hypotheses. And there is that one really, really, really important thing that gravity has and VSL does not...
EVIDENCE!
-
Light does not accelerate. Photons travel at c always! Now changing from one medium to another they do change speed, say from air to water, but the change is essentially instantaneous. And I am quite certain that is not what you mean.
I think you mean that light changes velocity when passing through mediums of different density, but not speed. You do know the difference between speed and velocity, right? Also, c is a variable, not a constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light)
I do know the difference between speed and velocity. The first is a scalar whereas the latter a vector. And when changing from one medium to another speed changes, ergo changing the velocity vector (think length of the vector) and also the direction of the velocity changes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index.)
-
I note again that jroa—as he often does—has chosen to avoid answering my simple question:
Are you claiming that you've personally "demonstrated" using your own methodology that the speed of light is a variable, or are you simply parroting what you've heard other people say jroa?
He repeatedly refutes round earthers simply quoting scientific research as evidence for their claims, but in this instance is apparently more than happy to do so in support of his own argument.
It seems that when it comes to citing scientific references, jroa is somewhat selective; those of the round earthers are invariably erroneous, while those of the flat earthers are unequivocally correct. Which is certainly convenient LOL.
-
Velocity of light changes depending on the Aether it's in. There is no vacuum of space as that's just a made up fairy-tale just the same as the big bang or billions of years of Earth. There is an Aether, it's real and testable and gives off a certain amount of Ohms (300 something). Change the Ohms and you change the speed of light. Increase the Ohms increase light-speed, decrease Ohms and you decrease light-speed. To say lightspeed is a universal constant would mean that you would have to have the same amount of energy spread equally everywhere. Earth's magnetic field is probably producing the Ohms and because we live inside of the Earth the known universe is the Earth and the farther you get to center the more Ohms you lose. thus you lose lightspeed and you also shrink in size. This is very rare information though. Very few people know this as most are brainwashes into thinking Earth is a sphere that we live on the outside of and that it orbits the Sun. That simply is a fairy-tale. However the weaker Earth's magnetic field get's the more energy it outputs so the smaller it gets the hotter it burns. Earth has lost 10% of it's energy in just the last 100 years alone, there is not much time left for Earth or the Universe, only at most 115 years remain until the Universe will have lost it's energy and then it will simply melt into nothingness.
But I repeat the more condensed the Earth get's the hotter the field it spreads out which is why speed of light is actively increasing.
-
There is an Aether, it's real and testable and gives off a certain amount of Ohms (300 something). Change the Ohms and you change the speed of light. Increase the Ohms increase light-speed, decrease Ohms and you decrease light-speed.
Wow. You really have no idea of what an Ohm is, do you? Ohms are units of electrical resistance. Even if it could apply to aether, then it would stand to reason that increasing the ohms (resistance) would decrease the speed of light, not increase it.
-
There is an Aether, it's real and testable and gives off a certain amount of Ohms (300 something). Change the Ohms and you change the speed of light. Increase the Ohms increase light-speed, decrease Ohms and you decrease light-speed.
Wow. You really have no idea of what an Ohm is, do you? Ohms are units of electrical resistance. Even if it could apply to aether, then it would stand to reason that increasing the ohms (resistance) would decrease the speed of light, not increase it.
No because if you increase the resistance you increase the propulsion power of light because light accelerates at the speed of infinity. Decrease the resistance and you decrease the propulsion power. If you have Ohms of zero light will not propagate at all, it will literally just freeze in space and disappear out of time. If Universe had no resistance it would vanish.
-
There is an Aether, it's real and testable and gives off a certain amount of Ohms (300 something). Change the Ohms and you change the speed of light. Increase the Ohms increase light-speed, decrease Ohms and you decrease light-speed.
Wow. You really have no idea of what an Ohm is, do you? Ohms are units of electrical resistance. Even if it could apply to aether, then it would stand to reason that increasing the ohms (resistance) would decrease the speed of light, not increase it.
No because if you increase the resistance you increase the propulsion power of light because light accelerates at the speed of infinity. Decrease the resistance and you decrease the propulsion power. If you have Ohms of zero light will not propagate at all, it will literally just freeze in space and disappear out of time. If Universe had no resistance it would vanish.
You do realise all this is pulled straight out off your ass? There is NO reason to think what you say here is even remotely true. How dare you say this is how stuff works when you have absolutely no proof to back it, even in your own head? What makes you believe what you say here?
-
There is an Aether, it's real and testable and gives off a certain amount of Ohms (300 something). Change the Ohms and you change the speed of light. Increase the Ohms increase light-speed, decrease Ohms and you decrease light-speed.
Wow. You really have no idea of what an Ohm is, do you? Ohms are units of electrical resistance. Even if it could apply to aether, then it would stand to reason that increasing the ohms (resistance) would decrease the speed of light, not increase it.
No because if you increase the resistance you increase the propulsion power of light because light accelerates at the speed of infinity. Decrease the resistance and you decrease the propulsion power. If you have Ohms of zero light will not propagate at all, it will literally just freeze in space and disappear out of time. If Universe had no resistance it would vanish.
You do realise all this is pulled straight out off your ass? There is NO reason to think what you say here is even remotely true. How dare you say this is how stuff works when you have absolutely no proof to back it, even in your own head? What makes you believe what you say here?
I believe it because I've seen it happen in real life. I can't really explain why it happens except for that it does happen. It's kind of like counter-steering on a motorcycle to turn left my handlebars are actually turned to the right and my bikes whole center of gravity is shifted to the left which makes it try to pivot around this center but it's at speed so the center is projected in front of the bike itself. In this scenario you are steering the opposite way you are turning.
Now back to the resistance scenario I believe it's because that which light derives it's power is from the aetheric conductor so light will always match the resistance levels so the higher the resistance the higher the energy. This is something to do with the inverse square laws of motion meaning the more energy you add the more surface area you have to propel or something like that.
-
Well firstly I can explain exactly why I counter steer when riding my motorcycle. Feel free to look it up. Simply because you cannot explain it does not mean a phenomenon has not been fully explained.
As to all your gibberish about light, the aether, etc. just a load of rubbish. Period. My head hurts too much reading what you wrote to even bother to critique it any further.
I will say just one thing. You mention something about the aetheric conduction of the propelling the light. Light is electrically neutral, it has no charge!. It cannot be accelerated bu electric or magnetic fields.
-
Well firstly I can explain exactly why I counter steer when riding my motorcycle. Feel free to look it up. Simply because you cannot explain it does not mean a phenomenon has not been fully explained.
As to all your gibberish about light, the aether, etc. just a load of rubbish. Period. My head hurts too much reading what you wrote to even bother to critique it any further.
I will say just one thing. You mention something about the aetheric conduction of the propelling the light. Light is electrically neutral, it has no charge!. It cannot be accelerated bu electric or magnetic fields.
I know light has no charge but because the neutral scaler field is more densely packed the more energy you add into it the faster the light propels. Think of it like adding more water pressure into a hose, the more you add the faster the water flows. Of course light doesn't flow through a hose but is merely reflected around objects. In space you lose density the more deep you go and thus you experience a shrinking effect with you becoming smaller and smaller and everything else in comparison becoming bigger and bigger.
-
Well firstly I can explain exactly why I counter steer when riding my motorcycle. Feel free to look it up. Simply because you cannot explain it does not mean a phenomenon has not been fully explained.
As to all your gibberish about light, the aether, etc. just a load of rubbish. Period. My head hurts too much reading what you wrote to even bother to critique it any further.
I will say just one thing. You mention something about the aetheric conduction of the propelling the light. Light is electrically neutral, it has no charge!. It cannot be accelerated bu electric or magnetic fields.
I know light has no charge but because the neutral scaler field is more densely packed the more energy you add into it the faster the light propels. Think of it like adding more water pressure into a hose, the more you add the faster the water flows. Of course light doesn't flow through a hose but is merely reflected around objects. In space you lose density the more deep you go and thus you experience a shrinking effect with you becoming smaller and smaller and everything else in comparison becoming bigger and bigger.
The amount of wrong is amazing. What does this neutral scalar field represent and could you give me its equation? Why does having more light accelerate the light? Light is reflected around objects?? You seem to have a strange definition of reflected. Photons bounce off of surfaces, this is reflection. The more deeply you go the more density you lose... Density of what exactly and why? And why would less density cause a shrinking effect, and of what?