The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: JRoweSkeptic on April 12, 2015, 02:11:42 PM
-
a lot of people complain about the conspiracy. it seems to be a logical deduction, and personally i firmly hold that space travel must be unfeasible due to the effect of aetheric whirlpools. however, if we imagine space travel is possible, and it is indeed possible to walk on the moon without burning, could the earth still be flat?
there is, after all, no reason to assume high altitude photos are completely accurate. with the scale involved, it is possible that light was simply contorted, and it was only possible to see a set amount of the earth. after all, the moon can only be seen from certain points on the earth's surface: that directly implies only certain points on the earth's surface can be seen from the moon.
around the earth, we see only darkness because light only goes a certain distance. this is a logical conclusion, as well: if light could go on endlessly it violates all number of scientific laws. we all know things become less visible with distance. it could be possible that what causes so-called curvature, and a round photo of the earth, is simply due to light only being visible over a set distance, forming the radius of a circle.
i am not saying this is so, merely putting the thought out there. flat earth theory would not automatically require a conspiracy.
if any would like to discuss this idea, feel free, i have little else to say.
-
Yes, but have you proved aetheric whirlpools? And your proof is aether exists, therefore there is aetheric whirlpools. Why does aether do what it does? Because it's needed for aetheric whirlpools, which are key to FET.
-
Don't try to derail this thread with requests for evidence!!!!
Jrowe does not like that.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63382.0#.VSrw6fnF_74 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63382.0#.VSrw6fnF_74)
-
Yes, but have you proved aetheric whirlpools? And your proof is aether exists, therefore there is aetheric whirlpools. Why does aether do what it does? Because it's needed for aetheric whirlpools, which are key to FET.
that is not remotely relevant. i am trying to talk about whether flat earth theory would be possible without a conspiracy. are you physically capable of staying on topic?
i have explained aether mutliple times, you have never paid attention. take it to a different thread, and try to at least do the slightest bit of reading on dual earth theory. i suggest starting with my model thread (end of page two and on).
-
You still need the conspiracy to explain why everyone is being told the earth is round, ice wall guarding, distances/flight times in southern hemisphere, ICBMs not existing, the worlds astronomers and physicists all lying to us, etc etc.
-
we see only darkness because light only goes a certain distance. this is a logical conclusion, as well: if light could go on endlessly it violates all number of scientific laws. we all know things become less visible with distance.
What scientific laws exactly?
-
Consider this picture
(http://www.gearone.se/Images/earth.png)
Doesn't exactly agree with your dual earth model. Shouldn't Africa be cut at the equator?
I don't think your ideas can survive without an actual conspiracy. There are just too many photos out there for you to explain how they were somehow distorted.
-
You still need the conspiracy to explain why everyone is being told the earth is round, ice wall guarding, distances/flight times in southern hemisphere, ICBMs not existing, the worlds astronomers and physicists all lying to us, etc etc.
in dual earth theory, there is no ice wall to need guarding, nothing to alter flight times, whether or not nuclear weaponry exists does not inherently relate to the shape of the earth, and as for the rest, honest mistakes are possible.
i have no doubt there are other flat earth answers to the early points, but that isn't hugely relevant. my suggestion was only that there could be a natural occurence which causes, for example, photos to take on a curved form.
in earthisround's example, perhaps light only travels a certain distance. this is what i suggested in my initial post. nothing can go on forever, that's basic knowledge: it seems common sense light would eventually fade. dual earth theory allows light to cross at the equator, creating the appearance of a continuous surface: if any light outside of a certain distance gives us, that would cause darkness and, from any point, would result in a circular view.
this is all just speculation, but interesting nonetheless.
-
in earthisround's example, perhaps light only travels a certain distance. this is what i suggested in my initial post. nothing can go on forever, that's basic knowledge: it seems common sense light would eventually fade.
But it has been disproved by deduction based on observation and experiments.
-
in earthisround's example, perhaps light only travels a certain distance. this is what i suggested in my initial post. nothing can go on forever, that's basic knowledge: it seems common sense light would eventually fade.
But it has been disproved by deduction based on observation and experiments.
could you please give an example that doesn't assume a round earth?
-
Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line. What makes things go hazy is atmoshperic conditions, such as excess water vapor (humidity), pollen, dust, pollution, etc. floating around in the atmosphere. (Not to disagree with your aether but no air hypothesis, just other things floating in it.)
Also to remove the conspiracy, you would have to accept the recorded and live streams of the ISS viewing the Earth as it orbits a sphere. You can watch it long enough to see the same continents come back into view, all while the Earth looks to be moving in one direction below the ISS. Also to have something staying up there with no constant propulsion, means that they cannot be above something accelerating upwards (standard FE model), but must be falling around it. With gravity, the mass of the Earth would "pull" itself into a sphere.
Now, is the ISS caught in a aertheric whirlpool? Since there is no evidence observed at the ISS, and the stars, sun, and moon are not moving with the ISS, then it cannot be in the same whirlpool system, also from Earth the ISS seen to be moving in one direction. The whirlpool's wouldn't quite work in this scenario.
Back to its movement around the Earth. Since it crosses the equator regularly in its orbital path, and the altitude it orbits at, one should be able to see clear signs of a disc shaped Earth.
That's just some of the things in the ISS that would have to be faked.
So no, you can't take away the conspiracy and not have a spheroid model Earth.
Side note, imagine yourself as a particle passing beside the Earth, also imagine your self going at 99.9% of the speed of light. Earth would appear to be only a few meters thick (basically looking like your dual Earth model but the two sides would be dependent on which direction the particle was coming from. If it was north to south, then it would look very much like it.
-
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.
i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?
-
in earthisround's example, perhaps light only travels a certain distance. this is what i suggested in my initial post. nothing can go on forever, that's basic knowledge: it seems common sense light would eventually fade.
But it has been disproved by deduction based on observation and experiments.
could you please give an example that doesn't assume a round earth?
Light has been proven to be a particle and act like a wave. I will search for some of the experiments, maybe some of my own from my physics classes a couple of years ago.
Unless something basically gets in its way, it will continue on forever. In the near vacuum of space, there sin't enough stuff to deflect all the particles of light at a high enough rate to diminish it completely before whatever is a trillion times a trillion years. The easy way to figure this would be to get the results from what the concentration of matter is in near Earth orbit (hard to find someone to trust if you believe in a conspiracy) and the measurement of the number of light particles (photons) expelled from the sun in a particular direction, or how many are reflected from the Earth back into orbit. I am saying near Earth orbit since it would be more than matter compared to further out and we are discussing how far you could see the reflection of Earth while in near Earth orbit.
-
i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?
Which is why I suggested it.
-
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
Light traveling through empty space does not lose energy. Also matter doing that does not lose energy, when it travels with constant velocity. That's not even modern physics, it was proven by Galilei (deduction employing simple math based on observation). It doesn't matter here if it is particles or waves.
If light loses energy it does not fade away, but decreases in frequency. These are so basic things. Yet you do not even know that.
in earthisround's example, perhaps light only travels a certain distance. this is what i suggested in my initial post. nothing can go on forever, that's basic knowledge: it seems common sense light would eventually fade.
But it has been disproved by deduction based on observation and experiments.
could you please give an example that doesn't assume a round earth?
You just need 2 mirrors and a straight path for the light between them.
-
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
Light traveling through empty space does not lose energy. Also matter doing that does not lose energy, when it travels with constant velocity. That's not even modern physics, it was proven by Galilei (deduction employing simple math based on observation). It doesn't matter here if it is particles or waves.
If light loses energy it does not fade away, but decreases in frequency. These are so basic things. Yet you do not even know that.
in earthisround's example, perhaps light only travels a certain distance. this is what i suggested in my initial post. nothing can go on forever, that's basic knowledge: it seems common sense light would eventually fade.
But it has been disproved by deduction based on observation and experiments.
could you please give an example that doesn't assume a round earth?
You just need 2 mirrors and a straight path for the light between them.
how do two mirrors work? if we are to see them, light will constantly be coming in from an outside source. if we lock them away, light will not keep moving between them, as a camera in the box will show. shadows exist, do they not? light stops and does not reflect off matter, it fades to darkness.
i know matter does not lose energy when it travels with a costant speed. light is not matter: light is energy, which fades until it is not visible. there is an aura of heat around the earth in all photos, which could be the infrared, and there are radio waves (blamed on satellites) further around the earth. this is what we observe.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
Photons can behave like a particle or wave. De Broglie's wavelength formula relates all mass to a wavelength.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
Photons can behave like a particle or wave. De Broglie's wavelength formula relates all mass to a wavelength.
my point precisely.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
Photons can behave like a particle or wave. De Broglie's wavelength formula relates all mass to a wavelength.
my point precisely.
Actually no. I was correcting what you said and answered what you asked. That wasn't your point.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
The problem here is you display lack of understanding of physics (and not for the first time). Once in motion an object will remain in motion indefinitely until acted upon by another object or force. In real life, objects tend to slow down due to the effects of friction with other matter.
Light is an electromagnetic wave and is self propagating. This will continue indefinitely until it encounters other EM waves or matter and will then be either absorbed, re-emitted, refracted or scattered. We livein an atmosphere and are used to seeing light being scattered and refracted by gas and dust in the atmosphere.
In a vacuum, light will continue forever and so will a moving object.
-
Its not too fast for us to measure, its too fast for you to tell with just using your eyes.
What I was trying to show was that light has to have something to absorb it, or deflect it before it stops traveling. The mirror box you proposed to disprove this is an incorrect line of reasoning since the mirrors do absorb the light. Light particles travel at light speed, funny how that works, which is very very fast. this means much more chances of absorption than you think. Try calculating the math of something bouncing off a meter wide box traveling at light speed, figure out how many bounces it would do in, say 1 second. Then figure the mirror absorbs 0.5% of the total light emitted (no way it is even remotely possible to be this low currently) per bounce. The absorption percentage would remain the same for each bounce, so its 1/2 a percent of the total light that was initially emitted. So lets say it was 3 billion particles to make it easy.
Its 299,792,458 meters per second.
so its that many (sort of) bounces in one second.
15 million of the particles are absorbed each bounce. 3 billion times 0.005 (0.5% level of efficiency of this mirror is magical)
So in 200 bounces we have no light left (3 billion divided by 15 million equals 200)
hmm 200 is much less than 299792458
bout 1/150000 of a second.
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
Photons can behave like a particle or wave. De Broglie's wavelength formula relates all mass to a wavelength.
my point precisely.
Actually no. I was correcting what you said and answered what you asked. That wasn't your point.
my point was that light does not behave just like a particle. in what way did you not support that?
-
The reason mirrors cannot continually reflect light back and forth is because they are not perfectly reflective surfaces, there are none in reality. Each bounce absorbs some of the light reflected, due to the speed of light the light bounces so fast and so many times that the delay between removing the light source and the light disappearing is so short that it appears to be instantaneously to us. Plus if you have a camera inside the box, the camera is absorbing large amounts of the light also. If you had a 99% efficient mirror (does not exist) and nothing but a light source to emit the light, the delay between turning off the light source and the light disappearing would still be instantaneous in human time frames.
Technically you are right that light isn't really matter, as a photon doesn't have mass per say. But because it is a particle it will travel, without resistance (i.e. something to deflect or absorb it), forever is a straight line.
pho·ton
ˈfōtän/Submit
nounPHYSICS
a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.
so light fades in what would seem instantaneous to us. if it is so fast, there is no way to measure just how long it takes, so we cannot say cleanly.
photons do not behave like particles, that is common knowledge. people also say light is a wave. which is it?
everything tires out as it moves.
The problem here is you display lack of understanding of physics (and not for the first time). Once in motion an object will remain in motion indefinitely until acted upon by another object or force. In real life, objects tend to slow down due to the effects of friction with other matter.
Light is an electromagnetic wave and is self propagating. This will continue indefinitely until it encounters other EM waves or matter and will then be either absorbed, re-emitted, refracted or scattered. We livein an atmosphere and are used to seeing light being scattered and refracted by gas and dust in the atmosphere.
In a vacuum, light will continue forever and so will a moving object.
if you are proposing energy can go on forever, this is your problem, not mine. light is not matter: it has the properties of a wave, you can't apply newton and say a moving object would go on forever.
the second law of thermodynamics is in play. heated objects cool: heat is infrared, which is, guess what, light. light fades.
-
a lot of people complain about the conspiracy. it seems to be a logical deduction, and personally i firmly hold that space travel must be unfeasible due to the effect of aetheric whirlpools. however, if we imagine space travel is possible, and it is indeed possible to walk on the moon without burning, could the earth still be flat?
there is, after all, no reason to assume high altitude photos are completely accurate. with the scale involved, it is possible that light was simply contorted, and it was only possible to see a set amount of the earth. after all, the moon can only be seen from certain points on the earth's surface: that directly implies only certain points on the earth's surface can be seen from the moon.
around the earth, we see only darkness because light only goes a certain distance. this is a logical conclusion, as well: if light could go on endlessly it violates all number of scientific laws. we all know things become less visible with distance. it could be possible that what causes so-called curvature, and a round photo of the earth, is simply due to light only being visible over a set distance, forming the radius of a circle.
i am not saying this is so, merely putting the thought out there. flat earth theory would not automatically require a conspiracy.
if any would like to discuss this idea, feel free, i have little else to say.
Please clarify how you can believe the Earth is flat without believing in a massive conspiracy. If there is no conspiracy, then NASA, SpaceX, satellite manufacturers, GPS operators, DirectTV, etc. are telling the truth. And one of the things that all of those organizations tell us is that the Earth is round. FE and The Great Conspiracy go hand-in-hand. Please explain how I am wrong about this.
-
a lot of people complain about the conspiracy. it seems to be a logical deduction, and personally i firmly hold that space travel must be unfeasible due to the effect of aetheric whirlpools. however, if we imagine space travel is possible, and it is indeed possible to walk on the moon without burning, could the earth still be flat?
there is, after all, no reason to assume high altitude photos are completely accurate. with the scale involved, it is possible that light was simply contorted, and it was only possible to see a set amount of the earth. after all, the moon can only be seen from certain points on the earth's surface: that directly implies only certain points on the earth's surface can be seen from the moon.
around the earth, we see only darkness because light only goes a certain distance. this is a logical conclusion, as well: if light could go on endlessly it violates all number of scientific laws. we all know things become less visible with distance. it could be possible that what causes so-called curvature, and a round photo of the earth, is simply due to light only being visible over a set distance, forming the radius of a circle.
i am not saying this is so, merely putting the thought out there. flat earth theory would not automatically require a conspiracy.
if any would like to discuss this idea, feel free, i have little else to say.
Please clarify how you can believe the Earth is flat without believing in a massive conspiracy. If there is no conspiracy, then NASA, SpaceX, satellite manufacturers, GPS operators, DirectTV, etc. are telling the truth. And one of the things that all of those organizations tell us is that the Earth is round. FE and The Great Conspiracy go hand-in-hand. Please explain how I am wrong about this.
that was explained in the post you're replying to. what is your problem?
people can be honestly mistaken.
i am not saying this is the case, it is just an interesting idea.
-
Please stop implying that I am using Newton's inertia arguments for light. Light is an energy particle that propagates as a wave. It is not like a sound wave that needs a medium to propagate through therefore losing energy as it travels. Light is energy, not specifically heat. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, like light is. Radiation is energy particles. Some carry heat.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic radiation in that way.
-
Please stop implying that I am using Newton's inertia arguments for light. Light is an energy particle that propagates as a wave. It is not like a sound wave that needs a medium to propagate through therefore losing energy as it travels. Light is energy, not specifically heat. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, like light is. Radiation is energy particles. Some carry heat.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic radiation in that way.
alpha and beta radiation are particles. gamma radiation is a wave, of the same kind as light, and it is not composed of particles.
aside from the absurdity of special pleading when it comes to differentiating the waves of light and sound, light is still energy, so the second law of thermodynamics is relevant. it loses coherency as time goes by, no matter what.
-
Please stop implying that I am using Newton's inertia arguments for light. Light is an energy particle that propagates as a wave. It is not like a sound wave that needs a medium to propagate through therefore losing energy as it travels. Light is energy, not specifically heat. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, like light is. Radiation is energy particles. Some carry heat.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic radiation in that way.
alpha and beta radiation are particles. gamma radiation is a wave, of the same kind as light, and it is not composed of particles.
aside from the absurdity of special pleading when it comes to differentiating the waves of light and sound, light is still energy, so the second law of thermodynamics is relevant. it loses coherency as time goes by, no matter what.
What's the formula for the loss of energy for light over time?
-
Ill wait until you come up with an aether theory for light transfer, as you simply have no clue about what you are saying right now. Gamma rays are extremely high energy (high frequency) photons, an energy particle. Much higher frequency than visible light. Alpha and beta radiation are in fact partial atoms they are different in speed , energy level, spin, charge, plus more. They are not considered electromagnetic radiation. Quit getting wrapped around the axle of the photon particle. It behaves as an energy wave, not a compression wave. It does not lose energy unless it reacts with something. So here is where you say aether is space and light reacts with it, causing us to only see a short distance in your model.
I do not understand why I continue to try, maybe it's because I don't like seeing a train wreck happening and stand by and do nothing.
-
Ill wait until you come up with an aether theory for light transfer, as you simply have no clue about what you are saying right now. Gamma rays are extremely high energy (high frequency) photons, an energy particle. Much higher frequency than visible light. Alpha and beta radiation are in fact partial atoms they are different in speed , energy level, spin, charge, plus more. They are not considered electromagnetic radiation. Quit getting wrapped around the axle of the photon particle. It behaves as an energy wave, not a compression wave. It does not lose energy unless it reacts with something. So here is where you say aether is space and light reacts with it, causing us to only see a short distance in your model.
I do not understand why I continue to try, maybe it's because I don't like seeing a train wreck happening and stand by and do nothing.
i haven't brought up aether once in this thread. aether is space, and so distance, but i'm only talking about light losing coherency as it crosses long distances.
an energy particle is not a particle of matter. energy disperses as time goes by, this is a well known fact. you cannot simply assert an exception to a well known physical law. perpetual motion is impossible.
-
Please stop implying that I am using Newton's inertia arguments for light. Light is an energy particle that propagates as a wave. It is not like a sound wave that needs a medium to propagate through therefore losing energy as it travels. Light is energy, not specifically heat. Infrared is electromagnetic radiation, like light is. Radiation is energy particles. Some carry heat.
The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to electromagnetic radiation in that way.
alpha and beta radiation are particles. gamma radiation is a wave, of the same kind as light, and it is not composed of particles.
aside from the absurdity of special pleading when it comes to differentiating the waves of light and sound, light is still energy, so the second law of thermodynamics is relevant. it loses coherency as time goes by, no matter what.
What's the formula for the loss of energy for light over time?
try to pay attention to what's being said rather than blindly repeating pointless additions.
i do not have the time or resources to take measurements and come to a formula for something i do not even accept.
-
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.
i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.
i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?
you seem to have... some misunderstanding here, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
energy DOES last forever, newton DOES apply, if you push something and nothing gets in the way, that object will go on forever, it will keep that energy forever.
-
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.
i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?
"Light, unless deflected, or it striking matter, will travel forever in a straight line."
why? energy cannot last forever. light is waves, not matter, newton does not apply.
in addition, flat earth theory does not require acceleration (dual earth theory has none, for example), and if there are multiple aetheric whirlpools, as seems likely, the space station could be caught in one, and not others.
i am not saying i hold this is true, but it is interesting to consider, no?
you seem to have... some misunderstanding here, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
energy DOES last forever, newton DOES apply, if you push something and nothing gets in the way, that object will go on forever, it will keep that energy forever.
moving at a constant speed does not require energy when there are no resistive forces.
newton does not apply to non-matter.
brush up on basic physics.
-
So an energy particle should not lose energy while moving without some resistance, therefore it will not dissipate. Thank you for proving yourself wrong there. Since energy cannot be destroyed it must go somewhere, if it has nowhere to dissipate into, it will in fact travel forever unless something is there for it to transfer into.
-
So an energy particle should not lose energy while moving without some resistance, therefore it will not dissipate. Thank you for proving yourself wrong there. Since energy cannot be destroyed it must go somewhere, if it has nowhere to dissipate into, it will in fact travel forever unless something is there for it to transfer into.
energy is not mass. did you miss that?
energy will dissipate by the second law of thermodynamics.
if you truly believe that however, look at the night sky, and see that light does fade. if it did not, the sky should be entirely white, by round earth theory, due to the vast number of stars. if light continues unimpeded, the majority of the sky should be shining white (especially in hubble photographs). unless the light is affected by the distance it travels.
so, are you going to admit photographs from space are fake, round earth theory's predictions in how many galaxies are wrong, or that light does alter with distance to become unseen, even through vacuum?
-
No, distance has no effect on light, matter does. Since there is matter in the universe, everywhere, even in the vacuum. You were saying that energy dissipates into nothing due to time or distance traveled (same thing at light speed). Even with the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system energy has to have somewhere to go, light will move forever.
Once again you are being obtuse.
I will not claim photos from space are fake, your logic is once again wrong.
I will claim that dual Earth idea is completely wrong. Will you now agree that your model is incorrect? There is no sun in the middle of the Earth. Will you now agree that space travel is possible?
No, you will not, because you will now get angry and claim I can't read, or I refuse to listen to your arguments, or I have some failure in my logic.
-
So an energy particle should not lose energy while moving without some resistance, therefore it will not dissipate. Thank you for proving yourself wrong there. Since energy cannot be destroyed it must go somewhere, if it has nowhere to dissipate into, it will in fact travel forever unless something is there for it to transfer into.
energy is not mass. did you miss that?
energy will dissipate by the second law of thermodynamics.
if you truly believe that however, look at the night sky, and see that light does fade. if it did not, the sky should be entirely white, by round earth theory, due to the vast number of stars. if light continues unimpeded, the majority of the sky should be shining white (especially in hubble photographs). unless the light is affected by the distance it travels.
so, are you going to admit photographs from space are fake, round earth theory's predictions in how many galaxies are wrong, or that light does alter with distance to become unseen, even through vacuum?
Yes, light does "dissipate" in a vacuum and that's why you need bigger telescopes to see things from further away but with the right equipment there is no limit to how far you can see.
-
No, distance has no effect on light, matter does. Since there is matter in the universe, everywhere, even in the vacuum. You were saying that energy dissipates into nothing due to time or distance traveled (same thing at light speed). Even with the second law of thermodynamics, in a closed system energy has to have somewhere to go, light will move forever.
Once again you are being obtuse.
I will not claim photos from space are fake, your logic is once again wrong.
I will claim that dual Earth idea is completely wrong. Will you now agree that your model is incorrect? There is no sun in the middle of the Earth. Will you now agree that space travel is possible?
No, you will not, because you will now get angry and claim I can't read, or I refuse to listen to your arguments, or I have some failure in my logic.
what on earth are you talking about? of course the energy of light has somewhere to go. do you understand what 'dissipates' means?!
if you can give the slightest bit of evidence for what you say, as i have done, then what you say has merit. until you can do that, you're just wasting time.
-
Sure sure, once again projecting your failures onto others, what evidence have you ever given? You give only assumptions, then get mad, say everyone else is getting mad, then you stop reading or start ignoring parts of posts refuting your claims and you start claiming they can't read. Someone asks for clarification and you spout off about repeating yourself when you never say anything.
Like i said before, you are a colossal waste of time.
-
Sure sure, once again projecting your failures onto others, what evidence have you ever given? You give only assumptions, then get mad, say everyone else is getting mad, then you stop reading or start ignoring parts of posts refuting your claims and you start claiming they can't read. Someone asks for clarification and you spout off about repeating yourself when you never say anything.
Like i said before, you are a colossal waste of time.
i am not the one who ignore sposts. you're clearly the oen projecting here. we're done.
read the thread, moron.
-
Ok if you are not ignoring posts then you clearly do not understand them. Just because you do not like what is being said about your comments does not mean that the person saying it is ignoring you, Just because someone says you are not right about a failure of your logic process does not mean that they are stupid, or that they are attacking you. You go to the same thing every time. You claim people can't read, you get mad, then you start calling people names. Obviously do not know what assumptions and assertions are since you do them constantly and claim others are. Obviously you do not know what ignoring someones statements are because you do it all the time when what is said doesn't suit you and you then claim they are ignoring you. You obviously do not know what projecting is because you now think because you are mad you can just say I am doing it to you for telling you that you are.
Your premise is incorrect again.
You have never, ever given evidence. You claim observational evidence, but your interpretation of what you observed is not observational evidence, it is what you think is causing things you see to happen. Not to mention the things you see happening have already been explained but you do not want to accept that so you make up some other mechanism for it and call it observational evidence. This is wrong.
So you resort once again to name calling ans possibly putting me on your ignore list. Please fell free to hide if it make you feel better.
-
BTW, your signature line, you think you are making fun of logicalkiller but his statement is essentially correct, only magnifying you lack of understanding of the physics of the real world.
Matter is not technically made up of atoms. Atoms are matter, so are subatomic particles. So really atoms are made of matter, not the other way around
-
Ok if you are not ignoring posts then you clearly do not understand them. Just because you do not like what is being said about your comments does not mean that the person saying it is ignoring you, Just because someone says you are not right about a failure of your logic process does not mean that they are stupid, or that they are attacking you. You go to the same thing every time. You claim people can't read, you get mad, then you start calling people names. Obviously do not know what assumptions and assertions are since you do them constantly and claim others are. Obviously you do not know what ignoring someones statements are because you do it all the time when what is said doesn't suit you and you then claim they are ignoring you. You obviously do not know what projecting is because you now think because you are mad you can just say I am doing it to you for telling you that you are.
Your premise is incorrect again.
You have never, ever given evidence. You claim observational evidence, but your interpretation of what you observed is not observational evidence, it is what you think is causing things you see to happen. Not to mention the things you see happening have already been explained but you do not want to accept that so you make up some other mechanism for it and call it observational evidence. This is wrong.
So you resort once again to name calling ans possibly putting me on your ignore list. Please fell free to hide if it make you feel better.
i am mad when you blatantly lie as you just have. i am sick of round earthers attributing my theories to others, insulting me, rejecting what i have to say on principle, and the doing as you have just done and ignored pages of discussion to just outright lie.
i gave evidence. i used laws that govern energy, i gave an example of how the sky should be primarily white in the round earth model of light could continue endlessly through vacuum. (mikeman also agreed that light does disperse in vacuum).
you are lying. end of.
observational evidence means a theory explains observations. accepting a theory requires two steps. first, to show it explains observations. second, to show it requires fewer assumptions than an alternative. my theory achieves the first step: i believe it does the latter, but that is an entirely different debate.
do you disagree with those two steps and, if so, why?
-
Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.
(http://)
(http://)
-
Ok if you are not ignoring posts then you clearly do not understand them. Just because you do not like what is being said about your comments does not mean that the person saying it is ignoring you, Just because someone says you are not right about a failure of your logic process does not mean that they are stupid, or that they are attacking you. You go to the same thing every time. You claim people can't read, you get mad, then you start calling people names. Obviously do not know what assumptions and assertions are since you do them constantly and claim others are. Obviously you do not know what ignoring someones statements are because you do it all the time when what is said doesn't suit you and you then claim they are ignoring you. You obviously do not know what projecting is because you now think because you are mad you can just say I am doing it to you for telling you that you are.
Your premise is incorrect again.
You have never, ever given evidence. You claim observational evidence, but your interpretation of what you observed is not observational evidence, it is what you think is causing things you see to happen. Not to mention the things you see happening have already been explained but you do not want to accept that so you make up some other mechanism for it and call it observational evidence. This is wrong.
So you resort once again to name calling ans possibly putting me on your ignore list. Please fell free to hide if it make you feel better.
i am mad when you blatantly lie as you just have. i am sick of round earthers attributing my theories to others, insulting me, rejecting what i have to say on principle, and the doing as you have just done and ignored pages of discussion to just outright lie.
i gave evidence. i used laws that govern energy, i gave an example of how the sky should be primarily white in the round earth model of light could continue endlessly through vacuum. (mikeman also agreed that light does disperse in vacuum).
you are lying. end of.
observational evidence means a theory explains observations. accepting a theory requires two steps. first, to show it explains observations. second, to show it requires fewer assumptions than an alternative. my theory achieves the first step: i believe it does the latter, but that is an entirely different debate.
do you disagree with those two steps and, if so, why?
Yes I said light would propagate through a perfect vacuum forever, mikeman would even agree with that. The thing is space is not a perfect vacuum, that is what mikeman said also, it has some stuff to absorb it over time and distance. But the matter that is in space is so thinly scattered that light will travel a very very very long time before the last photon is absorbed. You are suggesting that energy, light, will just dissipate to nothing. This violates the laws of conservation. Energy and matter cannot be destroyed, just changed. Your logic is flawed in so many ways, this is why people have disagreed with you and tried to show you where you are wrong but you choose to ignore them, then get upset. You are misusing the law of entropy in many ways, heat will appear to cool but in fact it is spreading out, it needs something to pass into the equalize. In space there simply not enough stuff there for it to equalize very quickly. This is why astronauts in space experience a vast swing of temperatures depending if they are in the sunlight or in the shadow if something, like Earth.
Your ideas show way more assumptions than what you are trying to replace. I am not attacking your idea directly, hence not picking apart your theory very often or commenting on you faq. I have been trying to show you what you need to figure things out, you decide to skip developing math, experiments, gather evidence, etc. to test your hypothesis. You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time. You think you are explaining things by yelling or claiming you are having to repeat yourself over and over again. The reason you are repeating yourself is that you have not explained anything yet.
Accepting a theory requires evidence, experiments, the theory to be able to predict outcomes, the experiments to be repeatable and give the same results for different people, and needs to have the mathematical framework needed to stand up on its own. You have no theory yet, you have a hypothesis. You think something and are getting mad when you claim observational evidence, but you are observing things already explained and attributing assumptions to them. You hypothesis is all assumptions, nothing more at this point. You are being lazy and wanting to go from hypothesis directly to accepted theory without doing any of the work. You claim it is too hard, or you can't do it. Well if you can't do it then you hypothesis will remain where it is. It is by far nowhere near being a theory. Right now it is only assumptions. Cry all you like, that doesn't change that fact. Your observational evidence you claim to have is only your assumptions of causes of things that are already explained. You started this whole thing because you saw where the aether whirlpools couldn't explain the southern circumpolar stars, and the distances on the flat Earth map don't match up with reality, but you didn't want to accept the spherical Earth reality so you started coming up with another model, but you keep having problems and you keep changing your model to fill holes that changes keep making. This is why its not at all defined much less well defined.
-
Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=NafbGOQBlQs)
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=R5P6O0pDyMU)
completely irrelevant. i was talking about the images you say are from space, and said it is not the case because light disperses.
mikey is apparently unable to understand this concept. if light only does not disperse in a perfect vacuum, where exactly is this perfect vacuum he insists must be allowing light to continue endlessly?
it doesn't exist, so what i am saying is perfectly true. light, on earth, will not go on forever. it will dissipate. that seems to be yet another word he is inacapable of understanding. dissipate does not mean 'vanish', it means 'fade', 'disperse', 'spread out' until it is so thinly spread that it is essentially invisible.
You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time
that is utter bs. i get annoyed with statements like this which are nothing except uneducated assertion and blatant misrepresentation. dual earth theory has been simplified. there is not one alteration which increased complexity. the only tangible element of it that any round earther could have a problem with is aether, but aether is well-defined (it is existing space, with traits logically deduced, as i've gone into multiple times), and everything is a consequence of this. what you take issue with are conclusions, not premises: they are not assumptions, they are consequences.
if a implies b, and b implies c and d, my worldview contains all four of those things. however, the only thing that could be called an assumption is a: everything else necessarily follows. is that clear?
-
A belief in an illuminati NWO type conspiracy is required because surveyors, electronics experts, astronomers, pilots, seamen and navigators generally, all know the world is round and therefore when an educated person attempts to reason with the Flat earther the educator can be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.
-
Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=NafbGOQBlQs)
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=R5P6O0pDyMU)
completely irrelevant. i was talking about the images you say are from space, and said it is not the case because light disperses.
mikey is apparently unable to understand this concept. if light only does not disperse in a perfect vacuum, where exactly is this perfect vacuum he insists must be allowing light to continue endlessly?
it doesn't exist, so what i am saying is perfectly true. light, on earth, will not go on forever. it will dissipate. that seems to be yet another word he is inacapable of understanding. dissipate does not mean 'vanish', it means 'fade', 'disperse', 'spread out' until it is so thinly spread that it is essentially invisible.
You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time
that is utter bs. i get annoyed with statements like this which are nothing except uneducated assertion and blatant misrepresentation. dual earth theory has been simplified. there is not one alteration which increased complexity. the only tangible element of it that any round earther could have a problem with is aether, but aether is well-defined (it is existing space, with traits logically deduced, as i've gone into multiple times), and everything is a consequence of this. what you take issue with are conclusions, not premises: they are not assumptions, they are consequences.
if a implies b, and b implies c and d, my worldview contains all four of those things. however, the only thing that could be called an assumption is a: everything else necessarily follows. is that clear?
No I understood you completely, light will travel until it hits or is deflected by something. Plain and simple. You claimed it wouldn't. You thought you could say it was heat and it obeyed the second law of thermodynamics and would dissipate away. You were wrong on both counts. About light being heat, and what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. We continued arguing about whether light would indeed travel forever in a vacuum. This is what it does. Space however is not a perfect vacuum, but it is really close. So yes light will be absorbed by the matter in space, but it will not be absorbed away enough to make your statement of the light just fades away into nothing before reaching from one side of the Earth to the other. You do remember you said that maybe the pictures from space are not all faked and they were on the edge of space and the light just faded away before coming to the camera, giving the rounded look of the Earth.
you premise, like all your premises is completely flawed again. You logic is flawed. Light traveling through the near vacuum of space would take trillions of years to fully dissipate and that's if it hit a lot of dust clouds along the way. The sky would not be white either. Light can travel forever but what is out there for it to reflect off of, and if there is anything, we are looking at stars and galaxy like structures now with telescopes that are almost as far away in light years as the universe is old.
I've never said that space is a perfect vacuum. You assumed as much because you can't understand the basic physics of the world and seek to insert assumptions for all of it. Now you are having doubts about this huge conspiracy theory nonsense and you know that you can't do away with the conspiracy and your model survive. Well it hasn't survived beyond your own mind. This is why you decided to make up the dual Earth idea also, you were having doubts about the southern circumpolar stars and flight times. You thought you could wrap those things up, since you thought that was the main arguments against the flat Earth notion. You were in fact wrong. Now you own model has more holes than flat Earth ever did. It was an interesting distraction, I was willing to help you out, yet you turned on me a month or so ago and I don't care if they flame you in your FAQ thread, actually I don't care, period. You are such a closed minded person as it is easier to talk to 3 year old about poop and get a more serious conversation.
-
No I understood you completely, light will travel until it hits or is deflected by something. Plain and simple. You claimed it wouldn't.
For many decades after Hubbles law arose in the 1920's, there was a theory that light could 'get tired' and account for the reduction in energy creating the red shift observed by Hubble. If you search on 'tired light' you will find that there is an astronomical 'proof' invalidating 'tired light'.
-
Tired light theory has never been invalidated. Please, do not just make up your "facts" and try to pass them off as being real.
-
Tired light theory has never been invalidated. Please, do not just make up your "facts" and try to pass them off as being real.
What are you talking about? It certainly has. Please don't try and pass your delusions off as facts.
-
The sky would not be white either.
Did JRowe claim that in RE Theory the sky should be white (because of light not dispersing)?
That's really cute. Why? He just discovered Olbers' Paradox. And since that is not so trivial to solve you failed in realizing that he made a good point. But since I do not find his original post my guess what he means may be wrong.
-
Jrowe, you mentioned that you somehow proved that the round Earth sky should be white, but I assure you that's not the case.
(https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/watch?v=NafbGOQBlQs)
(https://server5.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s5iwolzo/p2/servlet/redirect.srv/slxv/shdpupchxkjtyowiddhu/szab/p1/watch?v=R5P6O0pDyMU)
completely irrelevant. i was talking about the images you say are from space, and said it is not the case because light disperses.
mikey is apparently unable to understand this concept. if light only does not disperse in a perfect vacuum, where exactly is this perfect vacuum he insists must be allowing light to continue endlessly?
it doesn't exist, so what i am saying is perfectly true. light, on earth, will not go on forever. it will dissipate. that seems to be yet another word he is inacapable of understanding. dissipate does not mean 'vanish', it means 'fade', 'disperse', 'spread out' until it is so thinly spread that it is essentially invisible.
You just keep assuming things and adding things all the time
that is utter bs. i get annoyed with statements like this which are nothing except uneducated assertion and blatant misrepresentation. dual earth theory has been simplified. there is not one alteration which increased complexity. the only tangible element of it that any round earther could have a problem with is aether, but aether is well-defined (it is existing space, with traits logically deduced, as i've gone into multiple times), and everything is a consequence of this. what you take issue with are conclusions, not premises: they are not assumptions, they are consequences.
if a implies b, and b implies c and d, my worldview contains all four of those things. however, the only thing that could be called an assumption is a: everything else necessarily follows. is that clear?
No I understood you completely, light will travel until it hits or is deflected by something. Plain and simple. You claimed it wouldn't. You thought you could say it was heat and it obeyed the second law of thermodynamics and would dissipate away. You were wrong on both counts. About light being heat, and what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says. We continued arguing about whether light would indeed travel forever in a vacuum. This is what it does. Space however is not a perfect vacuum, but it is really close. So yes light will be absorbed by the matter in space, but it will not be absorbed away enough to make your statement of the light just fades away into nothing before reaching from one side of the Earth to the other. You do remember you said that maybe the pictures from space are not all faked and they were on the edge of space and the light just faded away before coming to the camera, giving the rounded look of the Earth.
you premise, like all your premises is completely flawed again. You logic is flawed. Light traveling through the near vacuum of space would take trillions of years to fully dissipate and that's if it hit a lot of dust clouds along the way. The sky would not be white either. Light can travel forever but what is out there for it to reflect off of, and if there is anything, we are looking at stars and galaxy like structures now with telescopes that are almost as far away in light years as the universe is old.
I've never said that space is a perfect vacuum. You assumed as much because you can't understand the basic physics of the world and seek to insert assumptions for all of it. Now you are having doubts about this huge conspiracy theory nonsense and you know that you can't do away with the conspiracy and your model survive. Well it hasn't survived beyond your own mind. This is why you decided to make up the dual Earth idea also, you were having doubts about the southern circumpolar stars and flight times. You thought you could wrap those things up, since you thought that was the main arguments against the flat Earth notion. You were in fact wrong. Now you own model has more holes than flat Earth ever did. It was an interesting distraction, I was willing to help you out, yet you turned on me a month or so ago and I don't care if they flame you in your FAQ thread, actually I don't care, period. You are such a closed minded person as it is easier to talk to 3 year old about poop and get a more serious conversation.
what exactly are you responding to? you cannot make up my post, you have to actually respond to what i'm saying.
i said light cannot continue forever in reality (i did not specify in reality, i thought that was obvious, i do not talk about made up realms). unless you are saying a perfect vacuum exists, then you agree that light cannot continue forever.
case closed.
you can argue about the time it takes for light to disperse, but that is a minor detail in comparison.
i did give alternative explanations for how and why light would disperse, but they are simply unnecessary as you yourself have admitted light does fade with distance, as perfect vacuums do not exist. is it really that hard for you to admit you agree with me?
i turned on you because you were laughing at me. patronization is not at all the same as helping me out. why did you think i wouldn't grow sick of that?
i have no doubts about the conspiracy, it is a logical conclusion, i was simply curious as to how necessary it was. you have derailed this thread with dishonesty.
the conspiracy may not be required, by classical flat earthers. i believe space travel is impossible, as the aether grows too thick so i conclude the conspiracy must exist, but for flat earthers they could indeed allow for scientists to simply be mistaken. are you saying it is impossible for humans to make misakes? i would very much hope not.
-
Actually, I was generally interested in you actually developing something close to a theory. It was an interesting concept,even if I did not agree with it. I did ask that people leave you alone, I did say that you were at least trying to think, I did back off and ask simple questions to give you a little hint now and again as to where you would be questioned on your theory.
You on the other hand decided to start claiming I was hounding people, well before I started doing just that. You are the motivation for my most recent shift in how I deal with people on this forum. You decided to call me a liar because you have seen that I really dislike that. But hey, no worries.
I have no problem agreeing with you. Light does, over time finally get absorbed away, you thought it does so in a near vacuum within a few thousand miles, well it really really doesn't.
I just will not agree with something so blatantly wrong. I figured we had to back up and get the basics correct first, as you were wrong about what light was. I see now it is a colossal waste of time with you. You refuse to listen to any logic, instead you want scream and cry because people are not agreeing with you.
I will leave you with this. You are wrong about how logic works, you are wrong about so many things, and you cannot admit it when you even know it.
-
Keep arguing, pretty soon JRS will scream in size 72 font with bold, underlined, italicized words and get banned. That's a good thing.
-
Actually, I was generally interested in you actually developing something close to a theory. It was an interesting concept,even if I did not agree with it. I did ask that people leave you alone, I did say that you were at least trying to think, I did back off and ask simple questions to give you a little hint now and again as to where you would be questioned on your theory.
You on the other hand decided to start claiming I was hounding people, well before I started doing just that. You are the motivation for my most recent shift in how I deal with people on this forum. You decided to call me a liar because you have seen that I really dislike that. But hey, no worries.
I have no problem agreeing with you. Light does, over time finally get absorbed away, you thought it does so in a near vacuum within a few thousand miles, well it really really doesn't.
I just will not agree with something so blatantly wrong. I figured we had to back up and get the basics correct first, as you were wrong about what light was. I see now it is a colossal waste of time with you. You refuse to listen to any logic, instead you want scream and cry because people are not agreeing with you.
I will leave you with this. You are wrong about how logic works, you are wrong about so many things, and you cannot admit it when you even know it.
you happily agree with me on the crucial issue. our only point is disagreement is whether it could happen in the limited scale of distance. i am not sure why you are reacting with such venom to that notion, but regardless, please note i am not proposing it, this is simply an interetsing thought experiment to see if flat earth theory could exist with honest mistakes, rather than a conspiracy.
i call you a liar only when you are clearly being dishonest and acting as though a point hasn't been addressed when it's been dealt with multiple times. i have never claimed you hounded anyone, my frustration with you is simply because of how patronizing you were being.
-
Nobody is interested in Olbers' Paradox. :'(
-
Nobody is interested in Olbers' Paradox. :'(
round earthers don't like to admit they're wrong. i've only seen one do so.
-
Nobody is interested in Olbers' Paradox. :'(
That would happen if the universe was static and contained infinite stars, which would disprove the Big Bang theory.
Also, JRowe, the time light takes to be absorbed is not a minor detail when stating the Earth would look round from orbit because of it. We got off on the topic because you are misstating how light works. it doesn't spread from higher to lower concentrations, it travels in a straight unless it hits something (i.e. absorbed or reflected). When I tried to get this across to you you claim I am lying.
amazing isn't it? you happily talk about how round earth theory took centuries and experts and so many resources to reach the detail it currently has today, and yet you expect every single flat earther to manage all of that in the hours between you asking a question and their posting a response. (and don't deny it, i've seen the impatience with which you hound every flat earther).
hypocritical, really.
if there are holes in my idea, i am happy to hear them: none have been provided, unless you count straw men. what i am not happy to hear is people asking for more than even they would be willing to provide.
Just to remind yourself of when you first claimed the hounding part. Which was well before I started slightly hounding you for correct details. That time you were still not listening to what I was saying either.
This is our last conversation JRowe. I suggest you add me to your ignore list, I am not going to be continually called a liar when I am just disagreeing with you.
-
People thought the earth was flat a lot longer than they thought it was round. It's not our fault flat-earthers never thought of any sort of scientific stuff.
-
People thought the earth was flat a lot longer than they thought it was round. It's not our fault flat-earthers never thought of any sort of scientific stuff.
context of the times, length of time ago meaning much would be lost, resources they had access to...
should i go on or do you realize how utterly ludicrous your comparison is?
-
Very true, flat Earth belief has been around much longer. This is in countless historical documents. They have had thousands of years thinking the world was flat. Once they started actually looking at things from a larger perspective, and using science and math, they realized it was in fact not flat. Interestingly enough, one Greek scientist did measurements to determine what the circumference of the Earth was, then modern flat Earthers decided to use the same experimental results that was intended for determining the circumference to say that it proved a flat Earth if the sun were much smaller and much closer to Earth.
So they took results from an experiment and used them for completely different purposes than what the experiment was designed for. This BTW is their biggest piece of scientific evidence. They can claim Rowbotham all they want, but Rowbotham's predictions of the distance from the Sun was drastically different from this one, and his changed throughout the day and seasons.
With all the wealth of historical documents showing where they thought the world was flat, why is it that they crying about unfair standards is not flipped around? Even in the beginning I am sure there was no crying about having to show proof, otherwise they would have never went out and provided it.
So, flat Earth has had several thousands of years to develop something, akin to proof. Spherical Earth has had less than 2 thousand years.
This conspiracy is needed for the flat, dual, concave, square, or any other shape of the Earth than what we see from images from orbit. No amount of BS can disprove that fact either, you have to say that all the photos are in fact fake, that we do not go to space, that we do not have satellites in orbit, that much of science is wrong, that gravity detecting devices showing discrepancies of gravitational force changes due to where you are on the Earth, that geometry is flawed, etc. for any of these to be true.
-
Seems like a conspiracy is happening right here on this board. Not one single flat earther has engaged with me in an honest debate.
-
Seems like a conspiracy is happening right here on this board. Not one single flat earther has engaged with me in an honest debate.
why are you whining in my thread?
the chances are your questions are trivial and overdone. everyone gets bored, and a lot of newbies repeat the same old, obvious things. start another thread if you have any issues, don't derail.
-
Seems like a conspiracy is happening right here on this board. Not one single flat earther has engaged with me in an honest debate.
why are you whining in my thread?
the chances are your questions are trivial and overdone. everyone gets bored, and a lot of newbies repeat the same old, obvious things. start another thread if you have any issues, don't derail.
Hey I am not the plonker talking about the particular nature of radiation in a thread called 'doing away with the conspiracy'
-
Seems like a conspiracy is happening right here on this board. Not one single flat earther has engaged with me in an honest debate.
why are you whining in my thread?
the chances are your questions are trivial and overdone. everyone gets bored, and a lot of newbies repeat the same old, obvious things. start another thread if you have any issues, don't derail.
Hey I am not the plonker talking about the particular nature of radiation in a thread called 'doing away with the conspiracy'
pay attention. read the thread. seriously.
photos from space could be genuine (if space travel were possible) if light could not continue forever, and what seemed to be the edges of the earth just marked the point where light stopped being coherent.
the distance is much smaller than many believe it happens in, but it is well known that light cannot continue forever in the real world, despite mikey's asinine protestations. there are many things that could cause the effect, and i do not believe it happens, the conclusions is only that there is a possible model to allow for flat earth theory in addition to space travel and a lack of a conspiracy.
-
You don't WANT to get rid of the conspiracy. The beauty of conspiracy theories is that you can claim any evidence is "part of the conspiracy". Without a conspiracy, you actually have to rebut it, something FE'rs often have trouble with.
-
No. The only real conseracy is the mountauins and the Obomas and uthe obomunists arned those people; his commies and socialists and fascists. The Obomas built the mountains to hide their work and there Nasa work in trying to foll and the people and tax them their money. I have never seen a mountain in my life (Kansas is very fkat and I have never left) I have only seen pictures, how do I know they are real, I don;t so I think they are a farse. The pictures are either green screens put up for atheticds of mountaiuns built in th last 40 by the obomas to hide there work. Also. The ocean has not depth, if it did, the earth would not be flat. I have never seen the ocean, have you? I did not think so. The obomas are trying to dig in and hollow the oceans to hide the NAsa I but I and everyone free will stop them. KEEP THE OCEANS FLAT! KEEP THE OCEANS FREE!
-
No. The only real conseracy is the mountauins and the Obomas and uthe obomunists arned those people; his commies and socialists and fascists. The Obomas built the mountains to hide their work and there Nasa work in trying to foll and the people and tax them their money. I have never seen a mountain in my life (Kansas is very fkat and I have never left) I have only seen pictures, how do I know they are real, I don;t so I think they are a farse. The pictures are either green screens put up for atheticds of mountaiuns built in th last 40 by the obomas to hide there work. Also. The ocean has not depth, if it did, the earth would not be flat. I have never seen the ocean, have you? I did not think so. The obomas are trying to dig in and hollow the oceans to hide the NAsa I but I and everyone free will stop them. KEEP THE OCEANS FLAT! KEEP THE OCEANS FREE!
I smell a FlatEarthMaverik alt.
-
Seems like a conspiracy is happening right here on this board. Not one single flat earther has engaged with me in an honest debate.
why are you whining in my thread?
the chances are your questions are trivial and overdone. everyone gets bored, and a lot of newbies repeat the same old, obvious things. start another thread if you have any issues, don't derail.
Hey I am not the plonker talking about the particular nature of radiation in a thread called 'doing away with the conspiracy'
pay attention. read the thread. seriously.
photos from space could be genuine (if space travel were possible) if light could not continue forever, and what seemed to be the edges of the earth just marked the point where light stopped being coherent.
the distance is much smaller than many believe it happens in, but it is well known that light cannot continue forever in the real world, despite mikey's asinine protestations. there are many things that could cause the effect, and i do not believe it happens, the conclusions is only that there is a possible model to allow for flat earth theory in addition to space travel and a lack of a conspiracy.
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
-
No. The only real conseracy is the mountauins and the Obomas and uthe obomunists arned those people; his commies and socialists and fascists. The Obomas built the mountains to hide their work and there Nasa work in trying to foll and the people and tax them their money. I have never seen a mountain in my life (Kansas is very fkat and I have never left) I have only seen pictures, how do I know they are real, I don;t so I think they are a farse. The pictures are either green screens put up for atheticds of mountaiuns built in th last 40 by the obomas to hide there work. Also. The ocean has not depth, if it did, the earth would not be flat. I have never seen the ocean, have you? I did not think so. The obomas are trying to dig in and hollow the oceans to hide the INAsa I but I and everyone free will stop them. KEEP THE OCEANS FLAT! KEEP THE OCEANS FREE!
Ow...the stupid..the stupid are infekteng mee..
First, there's your total lack of evidence. You have never seen a mountain, therefore Obama built the mountains. I have never met you. Does that mean the Obomuists have a secret base inside your head? They might, there's plenty of room.
The ocean has not depth, if it did, the earth would not be flat.
Thanks for the proof. I have seen the ocean BTW, I live in @#$%*@^#$^$*@ CALIFORNIA!
Then there's your basic stupidity. As per usual, I bolded all your typos. What fun!
-
Then there's your basic stupidity. As per usual, I bolded all your typos. What fun!
The clues are there, if you read between the lines, it's likely to be a Kansas radio station 96.9 KTROLL ( ok that was a guess ) and they are just trolling the flat earth boards looking for program material, or maybe just entertainment. Must get pretty lonely out there in the suburbs of Topeka, what with screen doors a bangin, and one want's a changin.
Multiple writing styles, multiple personalities. lots of alts.
-
Seems like a conspiracy is happening right here on this board. Not one single flat earther has engaged with me in an honest debate.
why are you whining in my thread?
the chances are your questions are trivial and overdone. everyone gets bored, and a lot of newbies repeat the same old, obvious things. start another thread if you have any issues, don't derail.
Hey I am not the plonker talking about the particular nature of radiation in a thread called 'doing away with the conspiracy'
pay attention. read the thread. seriously.
photos from space could be genuine (if space travel were possible) if light could not continue forever, and what seemed to be the edges of the earth just marked the point where light stopped being coherent.
the distance is much smaller than many believe it happens in, but it is well known that light cannot continue forever in the real world, despite mikey's asinine protestations. there are many things that could cause the effect, and i do not believe it happens, the conclusions is only that there is a possible model to allow for flat earth theory in addition to space travel and a lack of a conspiracy.
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
techros, there is very little actually blamed on the conspiracy, round earthers like to sensationalize.
bosnian, you are deluded.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
So you don't know. Fascinating.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
So you don't know. Fascinating.
why do you think ignoring every word of a post to makes you look clever? it's pathetic. i didn't go into detail because i have no desire to waste hours when round earthers like you only ignore every word.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
So you don't know. Fascinating.
why do you think ignoring every word of a post to makes you look clever? it's pathetic. i didn't go into detail because i have no desire to waste hours when round earthers like you only ignore every word.
Why do you think that pretending that others are ignoring every word you say makes you look like a tortured genius? I like debating you because you are hilarious.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
So you don't know. Fascinating.
why do you think ignoring every word of a post to makes you look clever? it's pathetic. i didn't go into detail because i have no desire to waste hours when round earthers like you only ignore every word.
Why do you think that pretending that others are ignoring every word you say makes you look like a tortured genius? I like debating you because you are hilarious.
you're not debating, you're evading. if i'm so hilarious, pose actual, relevant questions, maybe you'll like the answers, maybe you'd even learn something.
i'm not pretending, it's clear as day.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
So you don't know. Fascinating.
why do you think ignoring every word of a post to makes you look clever? it's pathetic. i didn't go into detail because i have no desire to waste hours when round earthers like you only ignore every word.
No, it's pretty clear you don't know.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
So you don't know. Fascinating.
why do you think ignoring every word of a post to makes you look clever? it's pathetic. i didn't go into detail because i have no desire to waste hours when round earthers like you only ignore every word.
No, it's pretty clear you don't know.
if you actually have a question to ask, then ask it.
i will not spend hours on something that will only be ignored, but i have clearly responded to the question shown. if you cannot see that, you are illiterate, and there is nothing more to say.
-
If you do not require a conspiracy then you need to:
1. Explain why GPS is not cast iron proof the Earth is round. GPS satellites are sending their position relative to the centre of a round earth. The satellites are at least 20,000km above the surface of Earth. The satellites are only using radio transmissions and any amateur radio enthusiast can monitor the satellite transmissions
2. Explain why inertial guidance systems are not cast iron proof the Earth is round. A 747 flying at 900km per hour rotates 8.1 degree per hour around a round earth while an inertial guidance system can detect rotation to 0.01 degree per hour. All long distance jets are carrying these systems. They are commonplace for many decades
How can a flat earth be possible unless huge numbers of ordinary people are belonging to a massive conspiracy?
they work on given and known distances, not the overall size and shape of the earth. that's clear. in addition they invent fictitious forces to explain what doesn't work, and don't take into account some other elements. hoest mistakes.
[/quote]
1. The exact positions of the satellites relative to the centre of a rotating round earth is transmitted to the receiver. The receiver cannot work out a position from a made up none existing position.
2. The inertial guidance systems show the 747 is descending in three dimensional space as it flies at the same altitude where 8.1 degrees of curved flight per hour is 60 x 8.1NM per hour travelled
No fictitious forces are needed. Ordinary men and women are servicing the equipment - particularly the aircraft systems. But even radio amateurs can receive satellite information and build their own receivers.
You need a massive conspiracy with death threats to keep them all silent.
-
JRowe, for god's sake, does it not seem even slightly weird that after centuries of debate, you are the first person to publicly declare the existence of "aetheric whirlpools"? No? I can think of several ideas from various sources, including games such as Xenoblade Chronicles, where "ether" is just used as a convenient explanation for everything the writer's didn't want to explain. Coincidence? If there's not a conspiracy, then why are we arguing? The moon landing has been conclusively proven. Argue evolution. Argue gravity. All of it is proven, you can't pick and choose what pieces of conclusive evidence you believe. If Earth isn't spherical and we never made it to the moon, there is a conspiratorial source.
-
JRowe, for god's sake, does it not seem even slightly weird that after centuries of debate, you are the first person to publicly declare the existence of "aetheric whirlpools"? No? I can think of several ideas from various sources, including games such as Xenoblade Chronicles, where "ether" is just used as a convenient explanation for everything the writer's didn't want to explain. Coincidence? If there's not a conspiracy, then why are we arguing? The moon landing has been conclusively proven. Argue evolution. Argue gravity. All of it is proven, you can't pick and choose what pieces of conclusive evidence you believe. If Earth isn't spherical and we never made it to the moon, there is a conspiratorial source.
i did not invent the idea of aetheric whirlpools, and aether is well defined, proven to exist, and all of its traits are logically deduced, in the model i am proposing.
you are new, that's fine, but don't swagger in and assume you're an expert. educate yourself. you don't understand what you're talking about, that much is clear. you seem to have even missed the first post in this thread.
-
JRowe, for god's sake, does it not seem even slightly weird that after centuries of debate, you are the first person to publicly declare the existence of "aetheric whirlpools"? No? I can think of several ideas from various sources, including games such as Xenoblade Chronicles, where "ether" is just used as a convenient explanation for everything the writer's didn't want to explain. Coincidence? If there's not a conspiracy, then why are we arguing? The moon landing has been conclusively proven. Argue evolution. Argue gravity. All of it is proven, you can't pick and choose what pieces of conclusive evidence you believe. If Earth isn't spherical and we never made it to the moon, there is a conspiratorial source.
i did not invent the idea of aetheric whirlpools, and aether is well defined, proven to exist, and all of its traits are logically deduced, in the model i am proposing.
you are new, that's fine, but don't swagger in and assume you're an expert. educate yourself. you don't understand what you're talking about, that much is clear. you seem to have even missed the first post in this thread.
If that's the case then will you finally post aether prediction math so we can test your theory scientifically?
-
JRowe, for god's sake, does it not seem even slightly weird that after centuries of debate, you are the first person to publicly declare the existence of "aetheric whirlpools"? No? I can think of several ideas from various sources, including games such as Xenoblade Chronicles, where "ether" is just used as a convenient explanation for everything the writer's didn't want to explain. Coincidence? If there's not a conspiracy, then why are we arguing? The moon landing has been conclusively proven. Argue evolution. Argue gravity. All of it is proven, you can't pick and choose what pieces of conclusive evidence you believe. If Earth isn't spherical and we never made it to the moon, there is a conspiratorial source.
i did not invent the idea of aetheric whirlpools, and aether is well defined, proven to exist, and all of its traits are logically deduced, in the model i am proposing.
you are new, that's fine, but don't swagger in and assume you're an expert. educate yourself. you don't understand what you're talking about, that much is clear. you seem to have even missed the first post in this thread.
If that's the case then will you finally post aether prediction math so we can test your theory scientifically?
what is wrong with you? you have an argument shredded, and yet you continue to derail, and ignore any and all answers you're given.
learn. tehre is no point in talking if you refuse to learn.
-
JRowe, for god's sake, does it not seem even slightly weird that after centuries of debate, you are the first person to publicly declare the existence of "aetheric whirlpools"? No? I can think of several ideas from various sources, including games such as Xenoblade Chronicles, where "ether" is just used as a convenient explanation for everything the writer's didn't want to explain. Coincidence? If there's not a conspiracy, then why are we arguing? The moon landing has been conclusively proven. Argue evolution. Argue gravity. All of it is proven, you can't pick and choose what pieces of conclusive evidence you believe. If Earth isn't spherical and we never made it to the moon, there is a conspiratorial source.
i did not invent the idea of aetheric whirlpools, and aether is well defined, proven to exist, and all of its traits are logically deduced, in the model i am proposing.
you are new, that's fine, but don't swagger in and assume you're an expert. educate yourself. you don't understand what you're talking about, that much is clear. you seem to have even missed the first post in this thread.
If that's the case then will you finally post aether prediction math so we can test your theory scientifically?
what is wrong with you? you have an argument shredded, and yet you continue to derail, and ignore any and all answers you're given.
learn. tehre is no point in talking if you refuse to learn.
Refusing to learn? I just asked you for a very important detail about your theory and you proceed to say that I am refusing to learn? I am not following your logic here.
-
JRowe, for god's sake, does it not seem even slightly weird that after centuries of debate, you are the first person to publicly declare the existence of "aetheric whirlpools"? No? I can think of several ideas from various sources, including games such as Xenoblade Chronicles, where "ether" is just used as a convenient explanation for everything the writer's didn't want to explain. Coincidence? If there's not a conspiracy, then why are we arguing? The moon landing has been conclusively proven. Argue evolution. Argue gravity. All of it is proven, you can't pick and choose what pieces of conclusive evidence you believe. If Earth isn't spherical and we never made it to the moon, there is a conspiratorial source.
i did not invent the idea of aetheric whirlpools, and aether is well defined, proven to exist, and all of its traits are logically deduced, in the model i am proposing.
you are new, that's fine, but don't swagger in and assume you're an expert. educate yourself. you don't understand what you're talking about, that much is clear. you seem to have even missed the first post in this thread.
If that's the case then will you finally post aether prediction math so we can test your theory scientifically?
what is wrong with you? you have an argument shredded, and yet you continue to derail, and ignore any and all answers you're given.
learn. tehre is no point in talking if you refuse to learn.
Refusing to learn? I just asked you for a very important detail about your theory and you proceed to say that I am refusing to learn? I am not following your logic here.
you repeated a bs argument that has been shown to be a stupid question multiple times. if i asked you to provide a photo you'd taken from the surface of the moon, you could not. if i asked you to derive the equations governing all of your round earth theory from scratch for me, you could not. you are purposefully being intellectually unfair and moronic.
but, as you've said:
"It's really complicated and I don't have time to explain it all right now."
that must be a valid response, if you're using it.
-
Jrowe, I don't expect you to understand aether perfectly but if you don't understand it then don't claim to know it so well like you do. That was the main point I was trying to make.
-
Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?
-
JRowe doesn't understand what a falsifiable Hypothesis is I think.
Here is a copy pasta touching the subject.
What is a Hypothesis?
A hypothesis is an "educated guess." It can be an educated guess about what nature is going to do, or about why nature does what it does.
"Hypotheses are single tentative guesses--good hunches--assumed for use in devising theory or planning experiment, intended to be given a direct experimental test when possible." (Eric M. Rogers, "Physics for the Inquiring Mind." (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1966)
What makes a statement a scientific hypothesis, rather than just an interesting speculation? A scientific hypothesis must meet 2 requirements:
A scientific hypothesis must be testable, and;
A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.
A Scientific Hypothesis Must Be "Falsifiable".
A scientific hypothesis must be testable, but there is a much stronger requirement that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific. This criterion comes primarily from the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper, and is called "falsifiability".
Consider this hypothesis:
Hypothesis B:
"There are other inhabited planets in the universe."
This hypothesis is testable, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. Here's why. Hypothesis B may be either correct or wrong. If it is correct, there are several ways that its correctness can be proven, including:
A space probe sent from earth to explore the universe sends back the news that it has discovered an inhabited planet. (This news is later confirmed by other space probes.)
Radio telescopes on earth begin to receive signals from somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy that appear to be reruns of the "I Love Telek" show.
Knock, Knock. "Greetings, earthling! I am Telek from the planet Zoron in the Andromeda Galaxy. I have just landed in your backyard. Take me to your leader."
So, if Hypothesis B is true, there are observations that scientists could make that would prove its correctness. But, the hypothesis may be wrong. (Most hypotheses are...) If Hypothesis B is wrong, there is no test that will prove it. If one of our space probes never finds an inhabited planet, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If we never receive signals from space, or Telek never lands in your back yard, that does not prove that the hypothesis is wrong, either. Hypothesis B is not falsifiable.
What about this:
Hypothesis C: "Any two objects dropped from the same height above the surface of the earth will hit the ground at the same time, as long as air resistance is not a factor."
Hypothesis C is a scientific hypothesis because:
It is testable - pick 2 objects, and drop them. Of course, you may have to provide a vacuum for them to fall in, in order to remove air resistance from consideration.
It is falsifiable - If anyone finds 2 objects that don't hit the ground at the same time and can show that it is not due to air resistance, then she has proven the hypothesis wrong. This hypothesis "sticks its neck out" for every test. In theory and in practice, if Hypothesis C were wrong, it would be very easy and straightforward to show it.
In his youth, Karl Popper studied the "social theory" of Karl Marx and the "psychological theory" of Sigmund Freud. Both of these ideas claimed a scientific basis, and both could produce evidence to support their hypotheses - historical evidence on the part of Marx, and clinical case studies on the part of the Freud. Popper eventually became unhappy with both Marx and Freud (and their followers) because he felt that they were both too quick to "explain away" any evidence that contradicted their ideas. For instance, Marx had predicted that the communist revolution would begin in a highly industrialized country, like Britain or Germany. Instead, the communist revolution occurred in Russia, which was hardly industrialized at the time, and never spread to the industrialized nations. Marx's followers explained this by claiming that it was due to "unforseen historical accidents" and Marx wasn't actually wrong. Popper also noted that Freud often used essentially the same explanation to explain vastly different behavior - a brutal murderer was acting under the same influences as a generous philanthropist.
In contrast to this, Popper admired Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity. Einstein said, in effect (among other things), "If you look at stars near the Sun during a total eclipse, you should observe a specific behavior. If this doesn't happen, my theory is wrong." Popper felt that this contrasted sharply with the ideas of Marx and Freud - Einstein was willing to "stick his neck out". Popper felt that this was the essence of a real scientific hypothesis.1
As Popper pointed out, it is relatively easy to gather evidence for just about any idea, but a hypothesis is essentially worthless unless it is "risky" - it must make predictions that could contradict it. The process of gaining real confidence in a hypothesis, then, is not in accumulating evidence in its favor, but rather in showing that situations that could establish its falsity don't, in fact, happen.
-
Given those two requirements, dual Earth is not even a hypothesis yet.
-
Jrowe, I don't expect you to understand aether perfectly but if you don't understand it then don't claim to know it so well like you do. That was the main point I was trying to make.
i understand it just fine. your definition of understanding is just completely stupid. you cannot tell me the exact energy conversion of your stomach, the time it takes for anything to be fully digested, or exactly what percentages of what nutrients are absorbed: you do not have the resources to figure that out. you still understand perfectly why eating is needed, and the general process.
what is your obsession with math achieving except hypocrisy and derailing?
-
Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?
well, if something happened to defy the basis model (sun rising in the wrong place, coriolis force remaining in the same direction over the equator, the pole not being a magnetic center, etc), that would be one.
a more testable example i've given multiple times would be vertical refraction. if you can measure how light refracts over some altitude, taking measurements, dual earth theory predicts that there will be jumps, and not a smooth progression. this is due to aetheric whirlpools.
let me ask you the same. do you have any falsifiable hypotheses for your round earth theory?
-
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/67D/jresv67Dn2p153_A1b.pdf (http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/67D/jresv67Dn2p153_A1b.pdf)
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/51/jresv51n4p171_A1b.pdf (http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/51/jresv51n4p171_A1b.pdf)
Two papers on studies that took measurements of the refractive index of change in altitude. Keep in mind that humidity, temperature, and some other factors do change the index, just not as much as the gradual change in atmospheric pressure as you increase in altitude.
This was done with EM other than light, basically it was aimed at radio and microwave transmissions. But, since light is EM radiation, it should still basically follow similar results. Wavelength of EM does have a good deal of refraction though, so I will search for a survey that was done with visible EM (light).
It isn't a stair stepped change though, it is much more gradual, as expected.
-
Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?
well, if something happened to defy the basis model (sun rising in the wrong place, coriolis force remaining in the same direction over the equator, the pole not being a magnetic center, etc), that would be one.
a more testable example i've given multiple times would be vertical refraction. if you can measure how light refracts over some altitude, taking measurements, dual earth theory predicts that there will be jumps, and not a smooth progression. this is due to aetheric whirlpools.
let me ask you the same. do you have any falsifiable hypotheses for your round earth theory?
Off the top of my head:
Coriolis force - check
Sunrise and sunsets - check
Sunrise and sunset angle determined by latitude - check
Circumpolar stars at North and South pole - check
Magnetic field line parallel to ground along almost all latitudes - check
Minor bulge at equator - check
Flight times to multiple trans-continental destinations - check
Operation of equatorial telescopes by professional and amateurs across the globe - check
Longer days and nights during summer and winter at different latitudes - check
Orientation of star fields and moon at different latitudes - check
Measurement of earthquake waves across the globe - check
Plate tectonics and volcanism - check
Timezones - check
Orbiting spacecraft - check
Horizons and appearance of objects at distance - check
Exact predictions of eclipses - check
Measurement of gravitational variance across the globe - check
Actual verifiable evidence of aether and aetheric whirlpools - Absolutely none whatsoever
Actual verifiable evidence of the sun locating inside earth - Absolutely none whatsoever
As for your vertical refraction, this is simply caused by density variations in the air, as the sunlight passes through, resulting in changing refractive index and therefore slight distortions in the suns disc as it approaches the horizon. You'll notice that this does not happen when the sun is high in the sky. Surely, if your cause of whirlpools was correct then the refractive effect would occur across the entire sky....?
-
Skeptic - do you have any proof, evidence or falsifiable hypothesies that we can investigate?
well, if something happened to defy the basis model (sun rising in the wrong place, coriolis force remaining in the same direction over the equator, the pole not being a magnetic center, etc), that would be one.
a more testable example i've given multiple times would be vertical refraction. if you can measure how light refracts over some altitude, taking measurements, dual earth theory predicts that there will be jumps, and not a smooth progression. this is due to aetheric whirlpools.
let me ask you the same. do you have any falsifiable hypotheses for your round earth theory?
Off the top of my head:
Coriolis force - check
Sunrise and sunsets - check
Sunrise and sunset angle determined by latitude - check
Circumpolar stars at North and South pole - check
Magnetic field line parallel to ground along almost all latitudes - check
Minor bulge at equator - check
Flight times to multiple trans-continental destinations - check
Operation of equatorial telescopes by professional and amateurs across the globe - check
Longer days and nights during summer and winter at different latitudes - check
Orientation of star fields and moon at different latitudes - check
Measurement of earthquake waves across the globe - check
Plate tectonics and volcanism - check
Timezones - check
Orbiting spacecraft - check
Horizons and appearance of objects at distance - check
Exact predictions of eclipses - check
Measurement of gravitational variance across the globe - check
Actual verifiable evidence of aether and aetheric whirlpools - Absolutely none whatsoever
Actual verifiable evidence of the sun locating inside earth - Absolutely none whatsoever
As for your vertical refraction, this is simply caused by density variations in the air, as the sunlight passes through, resulting in changing refractive index and therefore slight distortions in the suns disc as it approaches the horizon. You'll notice that this does not happen when the sun is high in the sky. Surely, if your cause of whirlpools was correct then the refractive effect would occur across the entire sky....?
given that each of those things occur and are explained by the dual earth model, they are also more falsifiable hypothese for me, thank you.
there is plenty of observational evidence for aether.
what is it you require of evidence? for me, evidence is found when what we're seeking evidence of explains observations, and requires less assumptions than the alternatives.
-
there is plenty of observational evidence for aether.
I have seen absolutely no evidence for the aether, only one thread that is evidence of you being horrible with experiments.
-
there is plenty of observational evidence for aether.
I have seen absolutely no evidence for the aether, only one thread that is evidence of you being horrible with experiments.
then you have not been paying attention. aether in my model is the fabric of space (which clealry exists) and all traits are logical deductions. the fact it matches observations is the definition of observational evidence.
-
CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL