This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.The only beding light does is over the curvature of the earth
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?
Temp ~ 19celcius
Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.
Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6
Equipment setup
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8417/dsc9343002smallhm9.th.jpg) (http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9343002smallhm9.jpg)
(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9329/dsc9346003smallwr1.th.jpg) (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9346003smallwr1.jpg)
(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4701/dsc9405025smallyd9.th.jpg) (http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9405025smallyd9.jpg)
Showing the elevated roadway
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2150/dsc9400022smallgt3.th.jpg) (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9400022smallgt3.jpg)
Tanker at ground
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.th.jpg) (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg)
Tanker at elevation
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6605/dsc9410028smallkj9.th.jpg) (http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9410028smallkj9.jpg)
Lighthouse at ground
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8885/dsc9370011smallip4.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9370011smallip4.jpg)
Lighthouse at elevation
(http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8692/dsc9437038smallkm7.th.jpg) (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg)
Wind generator at ground
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/3346/dsc9377015smallfp3.th.jpg) (http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9377015smallfp3.jpg)
Wind generator at elevation
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9264/dsc9434036smallmk7.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9434036smallmk7.jpg)
Yacht
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9896/dsc9395021smallxl1.th.jpg) (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9395021smallxl1.jpg)
Comms tower at ground
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6840/dsc9376014smalljd8.th.jpg) (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9376014smalljd8.jpg)
Comms tower at elevation
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7933/dsc9432035smallib4.th.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9432035smallib4.jpg)
Ship 2 at ground
(http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1151/dsc9358005smallpc3.th.jpg) (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg)
Ship 2 at elevation
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/892/dsc9409027smalldb7.th.jpg) (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9409027smalldb7.jpg)
Please discuss. I'd be interested in peoples opinions.
Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.Now I thought You had performed this experiment yourself and got different results, so how can you say that light bends upwards?
Sorry for that. slip up, there are circumstances where it does bend. but it bends with the curve not upwardsIt can curve up, light will always look for the path of least resistance and since it is a hight pressure closer to ground light will tend to curve up
yep. the Only way to bend light straight up or down is with a prism.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
GIVE IT UP. You have no proof for bending light.
GIVE IT UP. You have no proof for bending light.
Or real physics.QuoteGIVE IT UP. You have no proof for bending light.
We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
...Tanker at ground
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.th.jpg) (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg)
Yup. If anyone ever goes to Southern California, visit Huntington Beach. Catalina can be seen..about 28 miles away. No matter how powerful the gear is that you use, you can't see Avalon Harbor. Because it is below the horizon.
Yup. If anyone ever goes to Southern California, visit Huntington Beach. Catalina can be seen..about 28 miles away. No matter how powerful the gear is that you use, you can't see Avalon Harbor. Because it is below the horizon.
Yes, because the light coming from it bends upwards.
The bending light light theory (Bedford Levels Experiment) purportedly shows that in practice light curves upward from the ground at about 6 inches per mile traveled. Normally you would not notice this effect. Over long distances, light rays passing through the atmosphere bend gradually away from the earth and up into the sky, giving the appearance of a "horizon" beyond which objects are no longer visible.
So the theory goes that when looking down at the flat Earth we see what appears to be a round Earth because the light is being bent to make it appear that way.
This may actually be true. It doesn't matter because it has a negligible difference when you're looking at the earth from a satellite in geostationary orbit. GEOS satellites are around 22,000 to 25,000 miles above the Earth. The Earth's atmosphere is only about 25 miles thick. If light bends 6 inches for every mile that means the light passing from the earth to my eye will bend about 12.5 feet. I don't care which way the light is bending, 12.5 feet of offset on a 22,000 mile line of sight is going to do nothing.
Sure they say, but that is assuming you are looking straight down onto the Earth. At the edges, you are looking through more atmosphere.
Fine. So let's assume the atmosphere was 8,000 miles thick. That's the equivalent of the entire planet being made of atmosphere and this would still only calculate out to just under a mile (4,000 feet) of offset.
The wheels of science grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine.
If he earth was flat there would be no need for light to bend. It would just be a straight shot.
the only problem here is that there is no observational evidence to support thisIf he earth was flat there would be no need for light to bend. It would just be a straight shot.
Except that the observations tell us otherwise.
My hypothesis regarding the Electromagnetic Accelerator (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0) is that light bends upwards in a parabolic arc, which over short distances for horizontal light will very closely resemble the expected secant curve in RET.
the only problem here is that there is no observational evidence to support this
Verticle light does a 180?
Why is it seamless? if there are area that we can not see should they not be black areas? of an empty gap with sky in it or even water from a different part of the oceanthe only problem here is that there is no observational evidence to support this
Yes there is. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg453220#msg453220)Verticle light does a 180?
Vertical light is unaffected by the EA. Any light coming downwards that is almost, but not quite vertical, will indeed turn around and go back the other way.
Why is it seamless? if there are area that we can not see should they not be black areas? of an empty gap with sky in it or even water from a different part of the ocean
???Why is it seamless? if there are area that we can not see should they not be black areas? of an empty gap with sky in it or even water from a different part of the ocean
That is like asking why a Round Earth is seamless since we can't see the other side of it.
That is like asking why a Round Earth is seamless since we can't see the other side of it.???
It is seamless beacause the rest of the ship is below the horizon. there was not a chunk of light taken out of it
I'm confused..possibly in syntax. As far as I am able to tell, an EA is a construct. where did it come from before we built it?
By the way, I've read your post about EA...have you had it checked out by a nuteral party yet, or is it still a work in progress?
By the way, I've read your post about EA...have you had it checked out by a nuteral party yet, or is it still a work in progress?
There have been numerous experiments that rely on the ability for light to move in a straight line (no deflection by this concept of EA), that have failed to detect this effect.
Here is a link to just one of them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO)
The shortest arm of this detector is 2.5 km (over one mile), so this effect should have been noticeable. As the article points out, a beam of light is split, makes 75 trips through the 4 km of the apparatus and then are recombined.
Since this effect is supposed to be measurable over a much shorter distance than the 300 km that each segment of this beam of light travels, I would say that this "EA effect" does not exist.
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/
And you say you know for a fact that the Earth is round. I think we're even.
Earth's spherical shape has been proven
Of course, that structure would have been built assuming the surface on which it stands is curved.
The structure being built to account for the curved shape of the surface of the Earth is easy. That is simple engineering.
How do you make the experiment compensate for "bendy" light?
How do you make light being continually deflected in a constant direction repeatedly bounce between two fixed points? The amount of deflection would be in the order of thousands of feet over the path of 300 km travel.
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/
If the Earth's curvature has been accounted for and the Earth is really flat, then the structure itself will be in the shape of a secant curve with upwards concavity. The parabolic path the light takes will be such a close approximation to this curve that any discrepancy will be immeasurable.
But this doesn't account for being able to recombine two curved light sources into a single coherent light source. Because the two apparatus are offset by 90°, you would see a phase difference.
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?
Can someone explain in very simple terms how?
Add to FAQ even?
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?
Can someone explain in very simple terms how?
Add to FAQ even?
Dark energy. It affects light in a different way to ordinary matter, accelerating it faster. In addition, light is not shielded from it by the Earth in the same way that matter is.
To end that stupid bending light theory I made a crappy ms paint.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/feslight.jpg)
As you can see, panel 3 would disappear followed by 2 and then 1. This would lead a boat to disappear sail first. This is not observed in the pictures.
So give up on the stupid bending light theory already.
Thank you dyno for taking it upon yourself to do an experiment.
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)
It doesn't go through the ground lol. I think what he was showcasing is the light's path, thus at a certain point, the bottom would disappear first.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)
So light can:
Go through the ground
Be effected by this magical light bending force unequally
My picture may of been drawn wrong, but bending light still leads to the top disappearing first.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
Upward? The light would have to bend downward to achieve the same effect.
Doesn't matter, the pic is still wrong.
lolDoesn't matter, the pic is still wrong.
A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
lol
If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen.
Think before you speak, tool.
lol
If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen.
Think before you speak, tool.
Why not?
wow, and you claim my comprehension sucks.
In the pic, the light hits the earth. Thus it cannot be seen, by anyone. My pic accounts for more of the object to be seen as one climes a hill.
Round earth follows a downward curve, it would be more then normal that you would need downward bending light to achieve the same effect on a flat earth.This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
Upward? The light would have to bend downward to achieve the same effect.
No, to make a curved earth look flat it would bend downwards.
Round earth follows a downward curve, it would be more then normal that you would need downward bending light to achieve the same effect on a flat earth.
If you are looking at a laser, then yes. Ships and other objects that one would commonly observe in this context tend to reflect light in more than one direction, however.
What does it matter whether it is a laser or reflected light?
Shouldn't all light be equally effected?
lolDoesn't matter, the pic is still wrong.
A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen.
Think before you speak, tool.
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)
That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?
lolDoesn't matter, the pic is still wrong.
A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen.
Think before you speak, tool.
It is you who are the tool:
Same lines, same curve.
(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4583/liteonboxbl8.jpg)
Seriously, the curved light on a flat earth model produces the exact same horizon effects as straight light on a curved earth. the problem with it is the experiment someone posted further up, and the daylight map I posted further up.
At what altitude would the light rays be moving vertically? It seems like at that point, I could see the light emitted, or reflected, off the side of the object by looking straight down.
That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?
Also you still haven't addressed the issue with your light bending not uniformly.
That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?
No, it is constant. You just don't have the brain power to understand it.
Light doesn't travel straight on a curved earth.
Also you still haven't addressed the issue with your light bending not uniformly.
Probably not. Can you please explain?
Probably not. Can you please explain?
The light will be bent in the same way regardless of whether there is an observer there or not. It just so happens that you don't observe it unless you are observing it, needless to say.
What I dont get is that it bends in an arc, the bottom of the arc is halfway between observer and object.
On RE the light bends at horizon. The horizon on FE doesnt work the same way, since it isnt curved. Its a diminishing of perspective lines. Sort of.
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything.
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything.
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything.
It can, if you understand what a parabola looks like.
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything.
I know what they look like.
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything.
Pls draw a diagram of what you think happens to light on a round earth, draw it really round and show the same 123 tower going beneath the horizon.
I will draw a diagram of hte same thing and we will compare. Ok?
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything.
Pls draw a diagram of what you think happens to light on a round earth, draw it really round and show the same 123 tower going beneath the horizon.
I will draw a diagram of hte same thing and we will compare. Ok?
Ok, would you like it in a vacuum or in the atmosphere?
Round earth follows a downward curve, it would be more then normal that you would need downward bending light to achieve the same effect on a flat earth.
You are dumb and post dumb things.
this forum is dumb, for starters the figure you agree with is both upward and downward.
Sigh, so basically it represents 1/x according to you. Or you don't get it.this forum is dumb, for starters the figure you agree with is both upward and downward.
No. Light bends upwards only.
so the guy has an eye in his knee to see the 2nd bock?No, but he could still see the second block. Where is your pic? I don't want you cheating off mine.
Sigh, so basically it represents 1/x according to you. Or you don't get it.
On RE the light bends at horizon. The horizon on FE doesnt work the same way, since it isnt curved. Its a diminishing of perspective lines. Sort of.That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Note that Im NOT saying that you dont understand because you are stupid. Instead Im being more mature and will try to explain what I mean.
On RE, light is being bent due to refraction in atmosphere at the horizon. And that is possible because the horizon is not a fixed place.
Your light on the other hand bends because of dark matter. I can understand that fex in space, if light goes near dark matter, it will bend and alter course. Thats how black holes have been "seen" right?
So, where is that dark matter? It must be strictly above us, right? Or, it is many sources which together have a centre of balance that is straight above us.
Where is that centre of balance of the dark matter? I bet theres a real word for that.. Centre of gravitation?
(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5272/redheadandgreenheadle2.jpg)Your pic is the same as mine.
Here's mine, bluehead can't see the bottom, but greenhead can, now the curving of light downwards like you have in yours is actually the explanation for the superior mirage.
Note that Im NOT saying that you dont understand because you are stupid. Instead Im being more mature and will try to explain what I mean.
On RE, light is being bent due to refraction in atmosphere at the horizon. And that is possible because the horizon is not a fixed place.
Your light on the other hand bends because of dark matter. I can understand that fex in space, if light goes near dark matter, it will bend and alter course. Thats how black holes have been "seen" right?
So, where is that dark matter? It must be strictly above us, right? Or, it is many sources which together have a centre of balance that is straight above us.
Where is that centre of balance of the dark matter? I bet theres a real word for that.. Centre of gravitation?
Not dark matter, dark energy. It is not a gravitational effect, but rather a mechanism that we do not know very much about yet that causes the light to bend upwards. Also, refraction in the atmosphere is irrelevant to the Sinking Ship effect.
Your pic is the same as mine.
Your pic is the same as mine.
No it isn't. His light rays don't bend around the surface of the planet to collide with the knee of an observer who, if he crouched down to knee level, should not be able to see the source.
Im happy that you chose to be helpful instead of barging away frustrated.. Maybe this is good for both of us. I can learn about physics etc, and you can learn how to deal with people. :)
Ok. Dark energy it is. Dark energy is powering the acceleration of earth too, right?
Not all light is parallel to the earth.
I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.
Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.
I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.
Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.
You should fix the error in the bold part, if you can find it.
Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.
Now how do we show whether it is the EA or the earth's convexity which causes this effect? What experiment can we do to tell the difference?
Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.
Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..
Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..
He was, he changed his theory apparently.
He was, he changed his theory apparently.
He was, he changed his theory apparently.
You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.
Basically, I considered a second UA, one that passes through solid objects (so that we are not shielded from it by the Earth), but that only affects electromagnetic radiation.
He was, he changed his theory apparently.
You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.
He was, he changed his theory apparently.
You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.
Seriously, where would we be today if people never could change their minds?
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?
That is their assertion, but it is wrong.
Even a simple set-up, something that will fit on a table, would demonstrate the presence of "bendy" light.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)
As you rotated the experiment in the vertical axis, the interference pattern would be changed by the "bend" of the light waves. Since this is not observed, there is no bend in light waves.
People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count.
People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count.
Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.
People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count.
Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.
His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one.
His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one.
His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one.
No. Also, I didn't remember posting that, but apparently I did have a different vision when I first conceived the EA. It is unimportant; the effect is the same.
Now. How can your theory be tested? Or even better, falsified?
I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.
I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.
Do you have a thread for your theory? Ive gone through the first 7 pages and I dont know what to search for..
Here. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0) I locked it temporarily because people were trolling it.
*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.
Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?
*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.
Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?
I won't bother editing it. Once I've finished working out the mathematics, I am going to upload a PDF document detailing the specifics of it. Also, it wouldn't have a reason to work outside of FET. It is an attempt to explain the Sinking Ship effect, assuming a flat Earth. Indeed, I have begun to wonder if it might be possible that light is bent in the shape of a secant curve rather than a parabola, such that it is completely indistinguishable from the effect of a round Earth.
if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks. School kids all over hte world would have noticed too.
if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks. School kids all over hte world would have noticed too.
Stop posting.
Disappointing responses from the FE's.Well Said
I see a lot of bold statements about theories and mathematics supporting them being "finalised" before release. I've yet to see any of them. Not just talking about Robosteve here.
The most vocal FE proponents seem to have avoided this topic like the plague. I gave plenty of notice about this experiment. I believe I provided quality evidence. Many FEs had strongly held beliefs about exactly what would happen when I whipped out a telescope and pointed it at something on the horizon.
They haven't come to the defense of their earlier beliefs which I see as an acceptance of this new evidence.
I'm not looking for them to convert to RE theory but I would like people to indicate perhaps they have learned something.
And to all those FE's with theories under development;
How about producing? Let's see some evidence of real work on your part. Talk is cheap.
Never. The force on the light ray perpendicular to the direction of its velocity approaches zero as does the acute angle between its velocity vector and the direction in which dark energy acts.
This point where the force would be zero would be when the light was moving in the same direction as the force; vertically. Eventually, all light would be moving vertically away from the surface of the Earth, unless the light can maintain momentum and turn past vertical, but then there would be a period of sine wave motion as the force acted on either "side" of the light. Then it would just take longer to reach vertical, but would probably have some interesting visual effects.
No.
how would light accelerate in any direction except perpendicular to its current direction of motion?
No.
Why not?
If this "effect" is "pushing" light in a parabolic curve away from the Earth, that implies that it acts perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. The light would be eventually moving in the same direction as the deflecting "effect". In the opposite, light moving straight toward the Earth would be in direct opposition to this effect and would have to lose momentum.
No.
The same reason that no matter how large x gets, x-1 is never zero.
You are the king of one word answers today.
Please explain.
Can you please explain how that relates? It doesn't make sense to me.
is the acceleration constant in one direction?
is the acceleration constant in one direction?
Obviously not.
So what causes this acceleration? is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light?
no you didn't!So what causes this acceleration? is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light?
I answered in another thread.
no you didn't!So what causes this acceleration? is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light?
I answered in another thread.
I answered in another thread.
Link?
Link?
This is about as much information as I can give at the present time on the matter of the direction in which light bends. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22328.msg455098#msg455098)
What's stopping your worthless theory from causing gravitational redshifting?
What's stopping your worthless theory from causing gravitational redshifting?
If you are going to throw unnecessarily malicious adjectives around, I am not going to answer your questions.
If you are going to throw unnecessarily malicious adjectives around, I am not going to answer your questions.
Please sir, if you would please answer a question. What's stopping your theory from causing gravitational redshifting?
The fact that it does not change the amount of energy in each photon.
Moving a light source doesn't change the energy level, but it still produces a dopplar shift in the frequency.
The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. You lose.
It accelerates it in a different direction depending on its velocity because c is a constant.
I thought you said that the direction was always perpendicular to the direction of travel.
[Yes. That is what I meant; the direction of acceleration changes depending on the direction of velocity. I did not mean that the relationship between the directions of the velocity and acceleration vectors changes.
Why do people quoe Rowbotham as a god when his experiments have been dsproven. and light DOES ben Oka Nieba, it bends over the curve of the Earth. Also light from other stars is bent by gravity of other stars as it travels to Earth, as discovered by Einstein. light does bend, light easily bends as it has no mass.
How does an effect that always is perpendicular to the direction of motion equal an effect that must act perpendicular to the surface of the Earth?
As I understand that if you graph the vectors, there will be a perpendicular component, but there should also be a component in the parallel correct?
So based on this "secant curve of light," how distance will a horizontal beam of light be moving vertically, or at least a close approximation of vertically?
Sorry, I must have been tireder than I thought when I typed that. Let me try this again...
So based on this "secant curve of light," at what distance will a horizontal beam of light be deflected so that it is moving vertically, or at least a close approximation of vertical?
...The first positive value of x that will result in dx/dy being zero is therefore πr/2, and since r is the radius of the round Earth, this works out to be 10,019 kilometres. Keep in mind that this will mean that light would approach vertical as it approaches this distance.
Of course, if the EA causes light to move in a parabolic arc, it will not resemble the secant curve in this extreme case. Light will approach vertical as the distance approaches infinity if this is so.
Right, but we are talking about a Flat Earth here. No Round Earth mathematics here.
If you are going to continue to refer to a FE, then you won't talk to yourself. ;)
It seems that if light is "bent up" then at altitudes that aren't sea level, you would get in a condition where you would be able to see the sun "in the sky" from the light directly coming from the sun, and then a "second" sun below the horizon where you are seeing the light "bent" back up toward you.
It also seems that this would cause some distortion in the image of the Sun. Light from the "far" edge of the Sun would be traveling a different distance to the observer's eye than light from the "near" edge of the Sun.
Yes, I understand that it shouldn't get to be 90°, but it could get nearly vertical (>80°) before the slope of the distance curve becomes great.
The secant curve is the relationship between the distance of the light above ground level and the distance travelled along the surface on a Round Earth. The EA is an attempt to explain this effect on a Flat Earth. Therefore, RE mathematics is necessary to explain the behaviour of the secant curve.
No. All light will be bent up, so the only image of the Sun you will see (if you are high enough) is one below you, which explains why at altitude the Sun appears to set behind the horizon, even though the horizon is now beneath you.
Only very slightly. Certainly not enough to be noticeable.
Using the current (incomplete) model of the EA...
If you continue to talk about RE as a basis for your argument, they are going to take away those shiny new moderator powers.
Of course, that implies that all of the light from the sun comes out directly toward the ground. That is a big assumption. can you explain the mechanics of how that would work please?
Considering the effect is noticeable over short distances, even the 32 mile diameter of the Sun would give sufficient distance for there to be a measurable effect.
I know, so all of those numbers should be treated as pure guesses until that is finished and there is proof to support it.
I am using RET as the basis because it is known that it makes accurate predictions. Therefore, the best way to make FET work correctly is to make it predict similar results to RET.
The Sun is a spotlight that converts matter directly into energy with 100% efficiency. I don't know exactly how it gets all the light to shine down. Perhaps some of the light does go up, but you still would not see two Suns if you were high enough; rather, it would look enormous and possibly highly distorted. "High enough" means thousands of kilometres up.
Without the EA, the Sun at sunset would be 31.6° above the horizon and would be severely distorted into an ellipse with its major axis parallel to the direction in which it is being viewed. This distortion is perfectly countered by the distortion caused by the EA, so that it looks circular the whole time.
Guesses? No. Tentative estimates? Certainly.
Not just "Moderator", but "Global Moderator"I could be wrong but I think there is only the red Administrator, the blue Global Moderator, and the green Global Moderator.
Key word: Global. Sorry, I'm kinda tired and punchy.
Ahh, but there is a flaw in RE predictions, namely they predict that the world is round. I don't think that FE theory is compatible with that prediction. Even then, your mechanics (effects) would have to work differently, and because they don't work in RE theories, then they are consistently proven false.
Nope, just saying "that is how it works" is not a good argument.
and with EA, the effect should be an ellipse in the opposite direction because you are substituting a vertical distortion in place of a horizontal distortion.
Estimates with no data to back it up? Certainly.
But it is the best that we have at this point in time.
I am fully aware of that. The thing is that the elliptical distortion causes by perspective doesn't go away, so the two cancel each other out.
That is why I said "tentative". They are still estimates from a mathematical model, making them more accurate than pure guesswork.
Sorry, the FE supporters set the bar on this one. Look how many people have made that argument in terms of gravitation, and it was mocked as not being sufficient.
Purely mathematical models and no data to work with is guesswork.
As far as observable effects are concerned, RET makes damn good predictions. I am trying to reconcile FET with these observations in the simplest way possible.
If RET had been hugely deficient in its predictions due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, people would have noticed by now.
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is. In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again. Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again. It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is. In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again. Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again. It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.
The FE literature has always predicted a sinking ship.
It also predicts that the ship should be restored by telescope. The pictures show the opposite.
The second picture is wrong. It's from altitude. The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg).
The ship still appears sunk.
The second picture is wrong. It's from altitude. The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg).
The ship still appears sunk.
How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.
Besides, Dyno's images are exactly consistent with what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience.
From the chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:
"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."
Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on a sea due to the environ. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.
The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
Nope.
Fair is fair...Tom does the same thing...give him the same warning. "You're wrong", and "No", are his stock and trade a good deal of the time as well
Robosteve seems to be an RE'er who has put his blind faith into the RE model. He has not looked into the facts or looked into the data for his claim of "accuracy." Any claim of accuracy must first be proven.
Im really confused. Why is Robosteve a mod then? Who owns this forum? Where is the power, whos in charge?
The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.
I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.
I suppose I could take that as a compliment.
How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.
...The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1831/capetownobservationwr0.png) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1402/laqueridaobservationjf2.png) (http://imageshack.us)
If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.
If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.
So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.
(http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1036/32256426xm7.jpg)
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)
Classiest illustration to date!
To your thoughts. The light is not bent more than it creates the same effect as the curvature on RE. So I think the visual effect would be the same as RE.
Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1831/capetownobservationwr0.png) (http://imageshack.us)Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1402/laqueridaobservationjf2.png) (http://imageshack.us)
Both of those examples are of observations of ships at sea.
So the environment of the ocean somehow prohibits one from restoring a ship with a telescope? I can't believe this. This is how FEers respond to evidence of RE? Just make up new laws of perspective?
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1402/laqueridaobservationjf2.png) (http://imageshack.us)
The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.
Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.
Do you know where Table Bay is?
The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.
In that same chapter (http://earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html) in paragraphs four and five Winship reports looking at a ship at sea with a telescope and being unable to restore its hull. Wiship also reports looking at a ship sailing parallel alongside his own for a number of days - he reports sometimes being able to restore the hull and sometimes being unable to restore the hull, proving that the sinking ship on the ocean has more to do with the nature of the waves and the present atmospheric conditions more than anything.
Rowbotham specifically tells us from experiment and experience that the ship's hull on the sea is not brought back with a telescope. Samuel Birley Rowbotham told us exactly what Dyno would experience in his experiment 150 years ago.
See that bolded part? It means that we shouldn't expect to restore the hull of a ship at sea with a telescope. Later on in the chapter it describes how the chaotic nature of the ocean surface prevents a person at ground level from peering through the waves the ship shrinks behind as it recedes into the distance.
The OP has specifically done his experiment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us a ship's hull cannot be restored. If he had done the experiment on a lake, a pond, a canal, or some other body of water there would be no issue. The blame is on the OP for not reading the material before preforming the experiment.
When the OP goes to a higher altitude and sees the cargo ship restored there's a waterline from the waves in the restored area, marking exactly how much of the ship was hidden at ground level:
Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work remains accurate time and time again. This thread just demonstrates how correct Rowbotham is.
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)
QuoteTom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.
QuoteDo you know where Table Bay is?I sure do.
http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg
QuoteTom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.
Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.
I sure do.
(http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg)
Any responses to my falsification of your theory?
Or any responses to the falsification provided by the reflection of light experiment someone proposed earlier?
If you accept the premise of "bendy light" then the math for the electromagnetic effect seems to work.
Thats without any reference to anything i asked.
You were referring to the post about how light reflected off an airplane would still be visible to an observer on the ground?
Here is a thread where the math is discussed...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22379.0
The math is crafted so that if you accept that light bends, then the equations explain how light can be bent to give the illusion of a round Earth.[/img]
Light reflected off an Airplane? Wut?
Go read my posts or increase your reading skills ;)
Light reflected off an Airplane? Wut?
If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.
If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.
So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.
(http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1036/32256426xm7.jpg)
Go read my posts or increase your reading skills ;)
If the light bends that 2 rays of light would hit your eye at exactly the same angle at exactly the same point of the eye if you are looking right downwards.
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)
As opposed to under the water? We aren't discussing submarines here, you know. Boats float in water.
Why? Depends on the height doesnt it?
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.
Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?
Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.
Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?
Are you saying FEs have the mental development of a 3 year old?
QuoteAre you saying FEs have the mental development of a 3 year old?
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.
Just finished reading the tread, good times. I have a few questions. RoboSteve is a moderator who can delete posts as he feels fit and seems to favor the flat earth theory. Is there a forum where this topic is discussed where one side cannot delete the posts of people on the opposing side? I just wanted to see a thread where both sides are represented equally but I'm not sure if linking to such sites is allowed, any info here is appreciated.
Also is Robosteve the resident physicist for the flat earth model? If so, I'm curious what sort of physicist background he might have, completed high school physics, college, grad student post doc, prof, etc. Just curious.
Just finished reading the tread, good times. I have a few questions. RoboSteve is a moderator who can delete posts as he feels fit and seems to favor the flat earth theory. Is there a forum where this topic is discussed where one side cannot delete the posts of people on the opposing side? I just wanted to see a thread where both sides are represented equally but I'm not sure if linking to such sites is allowed, any info here is appreciated.
Also is Robosteve the resident physicist for the flat earth model? If so, I'm curious what sort of physicist background he might have, completed high school physics, college, grad student post doc, prof, etc. Just curious.
There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.
There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.Then do me a favor, everytime you resolve forces in one of your physics classes (modern Physics classes included) and the professor puts mg in the equation raise you hand and tell him he is wrong and see what happens
There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?
QuoteSo you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?
Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that the earth is curved.
QuoteSo you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?
Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.
QuoteSo you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?
Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.
Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.
Robosteve seems to be an RE'er who has put his blind faith into the RE model. He has not looked into the facts or looked into the data for his claim of "accuracy." Any claim of accuracy must first be proven.
That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.
But this would invalidate the Bedford Levels experiment? If light bends upwards, like the electromagnetic acceleration theory says, that would mean that Rowbotham wouldn't have been able to make the observations that he documented because the light would have bent up away from the lens of his telescope.
QuoteThat experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.
But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.QuoteBut this would invalidate the Bedford Levels experiment? If light bends upwards, like the electromagnetic acceleration theory says, that would mean that Rowbotham wouldn't have been able to make the observations that he documented because the light would have bent up away from the lens of his telescope.
I'm sure the scale of the experiments has something to do with it.
But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.
Book a flight on a commercial plane. Then fly around the globe with it. Have a small gyro with you (even an advanced Wii Mote may suffice) and record all the changes in direction the plane made. Then apply those to a plain map and then to a globe. And then look on which one you would be at the place you then are after marking the way on it. You may even take a GPS with you to track the planes speed and then apply that one to the map, too.
GPS are part of the conspiracy !!!!! lol
..and ask them the reason why we fly over the pacific to get to Australia from NY, even though it seems like that according to FE map a route over africa and asia is WAY shorter and safer.
QuoteThat experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.
Oh yeah and in case of emergency landing or crush, they would find themselves in the middle of africa, how would they explain that? I am sorry but that conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense.
Then the MiB come and get rid of them all and fake a crash in the ocean.
Or once the evil conspirators see on their radar screens that a plane tries to land on africa while its passangers should think they are elsewhere they just shoot it down and fake a crahs landing.
See? It all makes that much sense..
QuoteThat experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.
But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.
GPS are part of the conspiracy !!!!! lol
No, it's not.
..and ask them the reason why we fly over the pacific to get to Australia from NY, even though it seems like that according to FE map a route over africa and asia is WAY shorter and safer.
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"
A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"
I saw that, and I saw the map also. You could explain it by misled GPS, but how does that explain intercontinental submarine cables? There are fiber cables (and power, and telephone) run across the ocean floors between the continents, I would imagine this is something that would have to have been precisely measured in order to accomplish. According to that map, the cables between North America and Europe would have to be the same length as the cable between Australia and New Zea land. You cannot explain that with faulty GPS.
Here is a map of the submarine cable system, unfortunately there is no scale, but the cables are labeled and you could find out their length if you research further.
QuoteThat experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.
But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.
But I didn't "assume" anything in my post, I never said "assume the earth is curved". I said that with your experiment the question of whether the earth was curved or flat was an unknown. The fact that the laser point appears to be higher on the opposite pole could be explained by either light bending upwards, or earth being curved. I suggested doing an experiment that takes that unknown out of the picture, by using a known man made flat and level surface. The football field was just an example (not sure if its exactly flat). It could be any man made flat surface, as long as it was tested before hand to be exactly flat. You could prove whether or not the light bends up when projected parallel to a flat (and level) surface.
Oh really common sense you say?
Have you tried looking at your map?
The pacific Route is so long that makes it a senseless idea to fly by the pacific
1. Because it is not fuel efficient
2. Less safe (since across the african continent, and asia you would have more airport to stop by in case of emergency
That's fantastic and all, but if airlines don't know the shape of the Earth, they can't have better fuel efficiency and make it "more safe."
So Airlines fly blindly
get to destination, and in case of emergency landing, they land in the middle of nowhere, assuming its somewhere near the pacific?
And I brought that point up since I was told that flying over the Pacific even in the FE scenario is more fuel efficient than it would be to fly over Africa to Australia.
I'm no brillian scientist or professer,
get to destination, and in case of emergency landing, they land in the middle of nowhere, assuming its somewhere near the pacific?
What? The shape of the Earth doesn't change how they operate.
You are being funny, right?
FEs position seems to be "If YOU didn't create the evidence yourself, it's not real evidence", is that right?
I'm just wondering if by their logic the use of my own evidence is allowable for them to formulate their theory of bendy light. Shouldn't they be using their own images taken themselves? It's a rhetorical question. I'd like some acknowledgment that all the data out there probably isn't forged and that there isn't anything wrong with us using information and evidence published by others to support our argument, without having it dismissed as "conspiracy"
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.
you can see that flying in a straight line to Australia is the quickest route to reach it. And not by flying over the Pacific.
Yes, but from the FAQ, east to west travel is done on a curve. Since pilots are not going to question what they've learned, they are going to fly how they were taught to fly. This means that while a "straight" line may be faster, it's not going to happen.
Yes, but from the FAQ, east to west travel is done on a curve. Since pilots are not going to question what they've learned, they are going to fly how they were taught to fly. This means that while a "straight" line may be faster, it's not going to happen.
Oh really?? Pilots are not going to question what they have learned?
I am sure one of the theories said that they were part of the conspiracy.
So how can you be part of the conspiracy and not know the truth?
Not if they want to get to their destinations and not piss off their employers.Not all pilots are employees, some people fly for the fun of it, others are private pilots, some are close to retirement, why keep the secret if you are not risking much? hmm.
Not all pilots are employees, some people fly for the fun of it, others are private pilots, some are close to retirement, why keep the secret if you are not risking much? hmm.
Not all pilots are employees, some people fly for the fun of it, others are private pilots, some are close to retirement, why keep the secret if you are not risking much? hmm.
Do you think you can just go gallivanting around the world in your plane and discover this? Things are not that simple.
Other than avoiding restricted air space and making sure that you have enough fuel, what's to stop a private pilot from gallivanting around the world?
No, you usually you have to get a country clearance. Which can take up anywhere between 3 days to 1 month to acquire.
No, you usually you have to get a country clearance. Which can take up anywhere between 3 days to 1 month to acquire.
And their boundaries usually extend into the surrounding body of water, correct? This makes restricted air space further than their landmass I take it?
Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?
Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?QuoteEr, haven't you been reading?
lol are you people serious? you guys actually believe that the earth is flat? what is the matter with you all, haven't you guys seen the pics from NASA? what is that fake too? bc i live in florida and i go to every single launch at the KSC. wow you guys are toasted....
Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?
Er, haven't you been reading?
Im not sure just any civilian can hop into his jet and acquire a country clearance and go continent hopping.
Exactly.
I'd find it very unlikely that a random person with a pilot's license will gain clearance to simply enter another country's air space. This limits the area they can cover in their plane. This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that they need information on which to base their conclusions, that they are in a different area, or that they didn't follow their compass properly.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true. It isn't proof of anything.
Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...
1. Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.
2. Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.
3. Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.
4. It is a government conspiracy!
Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...
1. Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.
Except we showed that the waves were no larger than 0.5 meters.Quote2. Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.
No explanation as to why there is this special effect over seawater??!?Quote3. Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.
Tom doesn't know whether to support this one or not. It is a nice convenient explanation on one hand, but on the other, if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.Quote4. It is a government conspiracy!
I doubt that Dyno is a government agent, but who knows, they might pay him to "lose" those pictures.
...if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.
But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus. You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.
But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus. You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.
Wow, thats probably the best summary of FET I has seen yet. Good work mate! And I am being serious here (incase you thought I am bein sarcastic)!
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.and Dogplatter sees nothing wrong with man creating penguins
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
wat is the EA?
And light is not affected by magnetism...
QuoteGIVE IT UP. You have no proof for bending light.
We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.i found this in the FAQ
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.i found this in the FAQ
UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.
you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.i found this in the FAQ
UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.
you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.
The FEW does not represent the Flat Earth Society.
Considering what the "big" FE'ers believe, (Tom, Username, Ski) I would say bendy light of some kind is accepted.
QuoteGIVE IT UP. You have no proof for bending light.
We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
Taken on the Cap Gris Nez beach, 34 km distance, the full view of the White Cliffs Dover.
Let us now visit Beamer Falls Conservation Area.
<photo of Grimsby>
LOTS OF YELLING
Here are the photographers on the BEACH ITSELF:
To see those details, you need to ascend to 237 meters, inland, or to 200 meters in Grimsby, no such point of reference there.
Let me show you what quality equipment is.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9979943/Dove-Dover (the original photos posted on flickr.com, I saved the web pages)
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg)
Taken on the Cap Gris Nez beach, 34 km distance, the full view of the White Cliffs Dover.
Here are the photographers on the French beach, Shipspotting:
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg)
That is the equipment you should have used, dyno.
Let us now visit Beamer Falls Conservation Area.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/
Beamer?s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.
One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)
No 55 meter curvature whatsoever.
QuoteTo see those details, you need to ascend to 237 meters, inland, or to 200 meters in Grimsby, no such point of reference there.
How high is this hill of water again?
The curvature between Grimsby and Toronto is 55 meters. In order to see the following details from Grimsby, you would have to ascend to 200 meters there in that city, no such geographical point references exists, at most 45-50 meters...
Your calculations were too quick; you should see nothing under 5.56 meters. In the zoom taken at nighttime we can see EVERYTHING, even the light from the small island in front of Toronto; and in the original (without zoom) photo in daytime, we can see every detail with no curvature whatsoever. 170 meters is a height which we will find 2 km inland, in Grimsby, the actual place the photographs were taken, we can ascend just to about 45 meters.
If you still have doubts, let me remove them right now:
Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/2410587891_e9bbe99452_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/1571369829_dada8e886e_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2889142212_de5f408540_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2549368657_8150a4dbaa_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/2379255560_d357df6305_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2740770461_5063085e20_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2157/2336833000_3079d5112b_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)
Let us increase the distance to 33.6 km, zero curvature (supposed to be 22 meters), Oakville - Toronto:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2586347950_98fc26bfb8_b.jpg)
If the atmosphere were causing the bottom of the ship or the coast to be obstructed, then it would be gradually obstructed by what would look like fog, not obstructed by a horizon of water up to a specific point. The horizon of water obstructing the objects more at a lower elevation than a higher elevation cannot be explained by atmospheric visibility or perspective.
Now, for your photographic rebuttal, you should post the photos one at a time with the elevation of the photographer, the distance from what is not being obstructed by the horizon, and the geographic location. Make sure to include the source of the photo and data.
There is no sharp cut-off point, if you closely observe the horizon you'll see that it's blurred because of this gradient effect, and that actually the visible bottom part of each object is generally slightly less clear than the top of it.(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/279/horizonmqj.jpg)
They're all posted in those threads, along with details, I see no reason to clog up this one by copying and pasting them all.Some have details, some don't. Some are missing crucial details. Some make false assumptions. I'm not going to spam either thread by posting a grocery list of problems, nor do I want to waste my time, so why don't you find which photos provide sufficient and reliable data, then post it here.
I'm not sure about others, but I don't think that a small point and shoot camera will be up to the task. Even at 5 MP, you still have a tiny CCD and questionable optics (some point and shoots use plastic lenses). Personally, I'd prefer a good DSLR with a good quality lens, but I understand if you don't have access to such equipment.
NGreat, do not try these things with me here; I will punish you.
HERE IS THE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/343037881_497327a9d6_o.jpg)
45 meters, NOT THE 220 METERS HEIGHT YOU ARE SUGGESTING; THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING IN GRIMSBY, NOT SOME MILES AWAY FROM THE SHORELINE, AND THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN GRIMSBY AT ALL. Not even at 2 km inland, the height of the Escarpment does not reach beyond 170 meters.
Did you think it would work with me? Not a chance...
Even with a 120 meter altitude, we can see the entirety of the view from Toronto, impossible even from that height (which does not exist there).
THE CAPTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SAYS: TAKEN FROM BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA, 45 METERS IN HEIGHT, THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE GEOLOGICAL FACTS.
You wrote:
I can't see anything that suggests the image was taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, especially considering Cap Gris Nez consists of a rocky outcrop over 30 meters high.
Cap Gris Nez has a maximum height of 45 meters.
Here are the photographers on the BEACH ITSELF:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg
IT SAYS SHIPSPOTTING.
THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS, THE SHIPSPOTTING, LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL WEB SITE ADDRESS:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg
One, right next after the other; no curvature whatsoever.
That's barrel distortion.
The earth isn't even curved from the altitude of an international flight.
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.
(http://)
Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.
(http://)
Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.
From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.
What tom means is that what you see is the lit portion of the earth, which is circular because the sun is a floating disc in the sky, facing downward.Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.
(http://)
Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.
From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.
Ok.... where is this infamous ice wall at? The section of the video where it shows the "flat" Earth meeting with the blackness of space, there is no hint of an ice wall that is 150 feet tall, and many miles across. Is it hiding from us?
What tom means is that what you see is the lit portion of the earth, which is circular because the sun is a floating disc in the sky, facing downward.Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.
(http://)
Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.
From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.
Ok.... where is this infamous ice wall at? The section of the video where it shows the "flat" Earth meeting with the blackness of space, there is no hint of an ice wall that is 150 feet tall, and many miles across. Is it hiding from us?
If in fact one is directly in line with the earth and sun and sufficiently far away. Otherwise one is looking at a portion of an illuminated sphere.Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.
(http://)
Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.
From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.
Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?QuoteOoooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.
The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
Stop talking until you figure out what barrel distortion is and apologize.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?QuoteOoooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.
The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?QuoteOoooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.
The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?QuoteOoooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.
The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
Perspective.
On the ground our perspective lines are narrow and the vanishing point is about 30 miles away.
At the edge of space our perspective lines are broad and the vanishing point is thousands of miles away.
When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines, pushing the vanishing point backwards, and can thus see more and more distant lands.
An eagle has a greater vantage point than a mouse, you could say.
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
Is the "vanishing point" due to the limit of human vision? If so why can we still not see the object we are focussing on when we magnify it with a telescope? It mysteriously seems to be behind the horizon!?!QuoteWhy would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.
One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.
QuoteWhy would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.
One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.
QuoteWhy would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.
Is the "vanishing point" due to the limit of human vision? If so why can we still not see the object we are focussing on when we magnify it with a telescope? It mysteriously seems to be behind the horizon!?!
Can you link to one that isn't biased towards FEt? Maybe even written less than 50 years ago would be nice. You know, that would actually add to the discussion.QuoteIs the "vanishing point" due to the limit of human vision? If so why can we still not see the object we are focussing on when we magnify it with a telescope? It mysteriously seems to be behind the horizon!?!
We can see hull down ships when viewing them with a telescope. Plenty of accounts of hull restorations here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
We can see hull down ships when viewing them with a telescope.
QuoteWhy would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.
Tom, stop this nonsense right now. You are not describing the vanishing point, you are describing angular resolution. They are two different concepts.
Can you link to one that isn't biased towards FEt?
QuoteWhy would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.
One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.
QuoteWhy would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?
The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.
One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.
You seem to have some dissension relating to your explanation. Are you sure about your claim and what is or isn't at eye level?
The vanishing point is always at eye level.What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.
The vanishing point is always at eye level.What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.
The vanishing point is always at eye level.What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.
The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.
The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.
The clapping of my hands always kills a fairy.
The act of producing fluctuations in the air sends undetectable supersonic shock waves that target the nearest fairy and ruptures its skull.
The vanishing point is always at eye level.What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.
The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.
The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.
Please explain why your statement has more credibility than mine. Yours is a pure misunderstanding of perspective, and is aligning vision to right angles. Just because you cannot detach yourself from the notion of an "up", "down" and "horizontal" (all of which are just structures we use to handle input of the world), doesn't mean light is always aligned to right angles.
When I look vertically down a long elevator shaft, I can detect a vanishing point.
The point is, you don't know what a vanishing point is.
The vanishing point is always at eye level.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.
One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
The vanishing point is always at eye level.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning. Please cease posting.
The vanishing point is always at eye level.
Please cease posting and return to your community college.One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.
Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning. Please cease posting.
The perspective lines in relation to the earth recede until they meet at a point in the distance.
The vanishing point in relation to the earth's surface is always at eye level, whether it be on ground level, on top of a sky scraper, or at the summit of Mt. Everest.
The horizon line rises when you rise.
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.
Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?
http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.
Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?
http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html
Yes, you can see further past the curvature the farther up you go. Why didn't you just say that the first time?(http://epod.typepad.com/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b01157231613b970b-750wi)
Turbulent ship wakes stream aft of vessels and are commonly seen from the stern of a ship. But did you know that these wakes prove that the Earth is round? Look at the left and right edges of the wake. They form two fairly sharp lines that converge in the distance toward the horizon as a result of perspective. But they don?t meet at a point, as they would if the Earth was flat and the line-of-site was infinite. Rather, they?re separated by a small amount of space at the horizon where the observer?s finite line of sight is tangent to the spherical Earth.
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.
That's where I was leading this.You're going to say that a good telescope will restore the wakes' vanishing point. I can feel it.Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens. The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens. The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.
I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens. The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.
I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.
Or if the camera wasn't exactly level.
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.Refraction is not light bending.
Refraction is not light bending.
It's not light bending like bendy light unless you use very thin layers of denser and denser materials.
you know i write like this on purpose just to weed out the imbeciles who criticize grammar, punctuation, etcetera from the people with brains who debate me on the relevant topic at hand. thank you for making my daily task of finding an idiot so much easier.
you know i write like this on purpose just to weed out the imbeciles who criticize grammar, punctuation, etcetera from the people with brains who debate me on the relevant topic at hand. thank you for making my daily task of finding an idiot so much easier.
Why don't we try the ship experiment with wireless bridges?
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?You didn't even start reading through it.
I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere. But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?You didn't even start reading through it.
I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere. But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."
ITP: applying FET to RE.
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?
I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere. But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."
And you wonder why people troll here. 1) I stated that I had started reading andAnd I claim that you lied, based on the fact that you didn't know the basic information contained in this thread at the moment of your posting. Reading threads before posting is fundamental, though often unpracticed by people such as Raver,
2) I mentioned information from posts in this thread.Which doesn't make it any less incorrect.
Seriously, you act the age of the person in your avatar.That's me.
And since this is the debate forum, you really shouldn't have pointless threads, i've heard it may lead to bans.This thread isn't pointless.
The only reason I said anything at all was because I knew I wasn't going to get through all 23 pages of posts anytime soon and I wanted to express a thought that ran through my head before I forgot it.You should have at least tried.
Regardless of FE or RE, my question about light in a straight line (instead of "bending") was legit.The question isn't legit at all. You're asking why people why FET doesn't work when applied to RET. It reminds me of people who ask: "If Darwin was so damn smart, then why is he dead?"
who then complain for not being taken too seriously
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.Incorrect.
I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious. Evidence:Quotewho then complain for not being taken too seriouslyPlease be so kind as to point out where I do that.
I apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind from now on.raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...
Who said I wish to be taken serious?
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.Incorrect.I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious.Quotewho then complain for not being taken too seriouslyPlease be so kind as to point out where I do that.Evidence:implications at the very mostI apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind (you have one of those? :o) from now on.raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...
Who said I wish to be taken serious?
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.Incorrect.I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious.Quotewho then complain for not being taken too seriouslyPlease be so kind as to point out where I do that.Evidence:implications at the very mostI apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind (you have one of those? :o) from now on.raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...
Who said I wish to be taken serious?
www.rif.org
Fix'd :)
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.Incorrect.I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious.Quotewho then complain for not being taken too seriouslyPlease be so kind as to point out where I do that.Evidence:implications at the very mostI apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind (you have one of those? :o) from now on.raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...
Who said I wish to be taken serious?
www.rif.org
Fix'd :)
Oh, so it was an example of complaining after all? Okay.
Ty for proving my point, you are attempting to troll.Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
On the other hand, thank you for admitting that I was right.
QuoteQuite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
I know you are but what am I?
lol semantics.QuoteQuite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
Stop talking about yourself, it is considered rude.
QuoteOn the other hand, thank you for admitting that I was right.
Yes, you were right about being a troll. I also encourage you to stop telling people if their questions are legit or not, grow up kid, when someone asks a genuine question like the person did and you answer in the way you did, it is just trolling (or at the very least you are doing your best to appear as one).
Still trolling I see?
Still trolling I see?
Look, Raver, if you want to post up here, I'm gonna have to ask you to keep your posts on topic and stop trying to stir up trouble. If you want to flame PizzaPlanet do it in Random Musings where such behavior is tolerated.
If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.QuoteQuite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
I know you are but what am I?
How mature.
If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.QuoteQuite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
I know you are but what am I?
How mature.
I do apologize to anyone who might have thought that I was a moderator here. I am not. I was simply applying my own simple request for decorum on RT's post. Thank you.If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.QuoteQuite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
I know you are but what am I?
How mature.
ClockTower, please keep in mind that memberating is a bannable offense.
I do apologize to anyone who might have thought that I was a moderator here. I am not. I was simply applying my own simple request for decorum on RT's post. Thank you.If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.QuoteQuite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
I know you are but what am I?
How mature.
ClockTower, please keep in mind that memberating is a bannable offense.
You have to laugh when someone states that light bends up and then draws a diagram of light bending down and then up LOL.. Self contradiction to mold and ideological construct around unintelligent manipulation of information. Especially when I can actually prove this theory of his incorrect via use of mirrors, or simply by calling Japan and asking them where the damn sun is in the sky.. According to Flat Earther's the Sun would set at the same time across the globe, and it shouldn't be dark outside in Japan while it's a bight sunny day in Minnesota. Do you people really fail at critical thinking skills so badly that you actually follow nonsensical religious like garbage like FET?.. And sorry, photons don't all bend and travel all in the same directions, anyone with a mirror can see why this is. It's like the people here have no concept of light refraction. Yes we can bend light with the application of enough gravitational force, or by reflection.. However, you know someone has lost this argument when they start making nonsensical garbage up like "salt can effect the lens" in a dishonest effort to deflect from the argument. This site sounds more like a creationist website than anything else..
This is why I enjoy just sitting back and reading instead of attempting to have a debate. I ask one little question, which is still legit and I am still awaiting an answer. Instead of an answer it turns into a flame war, which by the way is off topic but no one says anything or does anything about it, and it is very amusing and similar to the rest of what occurs on this board.
This is why I enjoy just sitting back and reading instead of attempting to have a debate. I ask one little question, which is still legit and I am still awaiting an answer. Instead of an answer it turns into a flame war, which by the way is off topic but no one says anything or does anything about it, and it is very amusing and similar to the rest of what occurs on this board.
Perhaps you can clarify your question? Thanks!
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?
I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere. But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."