Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Closso

Pages: [1]
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I suppose so.
« on: March 04, 2007, 01:03:40 AM »
You can't imagine a 4th spacial dimension, but someone who lived in two dimensions probably couldn't imagine a third.  Of course, I can't imagine what lives in two dimensions besides old-school Mario...

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Time to Speak Out
« on: March 01, 2007, 10:20:07 PM »
Which, on a side note, makes it the most inefficient shape for living cells.  A thin disk on the other hand......

The Earth must be a blood cell flying through a giant creature's body.  I hope he doesn't get cut.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 32 Miles
« on: March 01, 2007, 10:10:43 PM »
It was stupid

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tides and the FAQ
« on: March 01, 2007, 07:44:36 PM »
No because an earthquake is perfectly timed to tilt it back of course...

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Number of People in the Conspiracy
« on: March 01, 2007, 07:43:03 PM »
Yeah, they have thought about it.  Theres a link to a thread about it in the FAQ, I'm too lazy to go find it.  They estimate MUCH fewer people need to know. 

7
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: traveling east
« on: March 01, 2007, 07:35:16 PM »
In order to travel directly east on a flat earth with North in the dead center, you do have to turn slightly to the left as you go.  However, FE'ers claim this turning subtle enough as to not be noticed.

8
The Earth would not shrivel up into a ball if it has a gravitational field because a flat earth does not have the majority of its mass located at the center, like a round Earth does (I'm fairly certain the round Earth does have most of its mass concentrated at the core, though it may be in the mantle.  Either way, its somewhat centralized, and therefore it makes sense that the mass of the Earth would scrunch up into a ball if it were not already spherical).  The mass of a flat earth is, more or less, equally spread out and therefore there is no reason for it all to be pulled to the center.  So, its perfectly reasonable for the Earth to have some gravitational field.

At least, that's how I think the FE'ers should explain it.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Rockets and Shuttles
« on: March 01, 2007, 05:01:15 PM »
Not in on the conspiracy, they just believe it  :P

10
Ok, but you could calculate the height at which the light should be at any distance from the origin based on the earth's curvature.  Then you can compare this with the actual height.  Based on your theory, they should be different.

Not if the rate of curve on the light is the same as the curvature of the Earth.

11
Eric - I think I'm understanding your theory, but to be sure, does my drawing accurately represent it?

12

Quote
The black lines show a path of reflection parallel to the Earth, where both bend up above the viewer.  The red lines show the light reflecting at a downward angle.  They both curve at the same angle (roughly, allowing for my crappy drawing), and the one from the mast hits the observer while the line from the boat hits the ground first.  Whats wrong with that?

And you're just ignoring the infinite other directions the light's travelling?  Solid argument.

Quote
As far as proving it actually does bend away from the Earth, there is certainly a long way to go...

I described an experiment to verify this, it's posted above.


No, I'm not ignoring any of them.  If you can show any that I didn't consider that make a difference, please do.

As far as your experiment, yes, that was my point.  That will be a great way to prove that light does NOT bend away from the Earth.  By "a long way to go" I meant "Its not going to happen"

13
The fact of the matter is that it has been proven that when the air is thicker you can see further round the Earth because the light bends down. If light bending down causes you to see more of a curve in the Earth then it follows that light bending up causes you to see less of a curve.

In response to this, I guess the FE explanation would be that the force causing light to bend away is NOT refraction, but some other unknown force.  Thick air would indeed make the light bend down, or at least make it bend up less, in this model.  But that's just my guess. Anyone else?

14


The black lines show a path of reflection parallel to the Earth, where both bend up above the viewer.  The red lines show the light reflecting at a downward angle.  They both curve at the same angle (roughly, allowing for my crappy drawing), and the one from the mast hits the observer while the line from the boat hits the ground first.  Whats wrong with that?

As far as proving it actually does bend away from the Earth, there is certainly a long way to go...

Edit: I guess the red lines came out kind of purple.

15
Your diagram simply reinforces the notion that the top would vanish first if the light bended away from Earth. Imagine two spotlights were placed in the boat, one at sea level on the hull and one on it's mast or highest point. The beam of light from the top of the ship would be higher than the beam at the bottom so it would bend out of sight first.
I think you are imagining these two beams as starting parallel to the earth's surface, in which case both would be invisible from the surface where the eye is.  Spotlights (or laser beams) are not relevant to this case.  What you need for both the RE FL (Round Earth, flat (straight) light) and FE RL case (which are geometrically the same) is to show that once the boat is far enough away that no valid light path goes from hull to (lower) eye, but at least one path from given point on the mast does.  The fact that a particular path (spotlight/laser) does not hit the eye is irrelevant.

But it is relevant because if you did use spotlights on the boat and light bends upwards then you would see the mast disappear first. How is this not relevant to your idea? Just because you don't want to use spotlights in an analogy doesn't mean that spotlights can't be used. Also the sun shining down upon the boat and it's rays being reflected to your eyes is virtually the same thing as using spotlights. The light reflects of the surfaces of the boat and as it reflects back towards you it is bent upwards. The light reflecting from the mast would start to miss your eyes first. Like I said your diagram shows this explicitly.

Not exactly.  I think you may have a point with actually using two spotlights, one on the mast and one on the hull.  However, that only works because if you are using a spotlight, you only have one spotlight.  With sunlight reflecting off the boat, there are effectively millions of "spotlights" reflecting off at all different angles.  So, according to Eric's theory, a path of reflection that starts off going steeply towards the ground from the mast may bend upward to your eyes, while a beam reflecting parallel to the Earth's surface would indeed bend above your head.  However, you'll see the one that started off steeper.  Then, you can still see the mast while a reflection off the hull steep enough to bend into your eyes would hit the Earth's surface first.

16
If the Earth were flat, and the light was being bent...there would be only one 'arc' of light to see the boat in. Something would have to make the entire 'arc' of light move altogether.

I think you're a bit confused.  If there were only one beam of light coming from the boat, you would be right.  However, light beams are coming out of the boat at infinite angles (that is, being reflected off the boat), so as the boat moves away different "paths" come into your eyesight, which all originate from the same point.

As far as I can tell, every part of Eric's theory holds up under the assumption that light does in fact bend away from the Earth.  Get crackin' on that proof and you'll definitely have something!

17
Hmm... so the light rays from the hull curve up, but not the mast?

My question exactly.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Simple Truth
« on: February 27, 2007, 08:24:30 PM »
Seriously, they tell you to read the FAQ first for a reason...

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Red/Blue Shift.
« on: February 27, 2007, 08:12:45 PM »
No, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it isn't a valid argument in this setting.  In fact, I completely agree with you.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Red/Blue Shift.
« on: February 27, 2007, 08:07:48 PM »
No, I'm not.  I don't believe the FE model, moron.  I believe in universal gravitation and that anything with mass attracts anything else with mass.  Your argument still makes assumptions that go against the basis of FE theory, and therefore can't be taken as valid.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Red/Blue Shift.
« on: February 27, 2007, 07:59:42 PM »
You can't disprove a theory by simply ignoring the basis of it, which is what you're doing.  If you want to disprove the FE model, you have to look at it from the FE perspective - and FE'er would say that you don't know that there is less of a perceived gravity on the moon, because no one has been there, and that you don't know there is gravity on the Earth without acceleration.  Your argument essentially amounts to "This part of the argument is wrong because I say it is, and therefore the whole theory is false."

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Red/Blue Shift.
« on: February 27, 2007, 07:40:33 PM »
What?  The earth is accelerating, thus creating what we feel as 'gravity'.  Gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable.
But if the earth is not accelerating then there is still gravity.

How can you be sure of that?  Even with a round Earth model, the Earth never stops accelerating.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: alright, so its all a conspiracy!
« on: February 27, 2007, 03:59:52 PM »
it was just an example.

I know, that's why you need to include the second part of my post, not just the part about France.  And if you read the FAQ you might have seen the link to a thread explaining only Russia and China need to be in on it anyway.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Hole in the acceleration theory.
« on: February 27, 2007, 03:48:41 PM »
Ok, but why does the source of all that energy have to be a fluid?

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: alright, so its all a conspiracy!
« on: February 27, 2007, 03:45:23 PM »
France IS in on it.  According to the FE theory, there aren't any countries with the capabilities to prove FE that aren't in on it.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: alright, so its all a conspiracy!
« on: February 27, 2007, 03:26:43 PM »
Other planets are not the earth.  ::)

are you saying other planets ARE round?

You do know...earth is a planet right? or does FE theory deny that as well?
I woun't bother looking for the definition of a "Planet" but im sure it's round, and it rotates around the sun.



Well, I can't be sure but I think FE'ers would say that Earth is not a planet, at least not by the common definition of a planet (a body revolving around a star).  But if you're just going by the fact that people call it a planet, I am an animal and so is a bird, but only one of us flies.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: alright, so its all a conspiracy!
« on: February 27, 2007, 03:14:24 PM »
but they would know. they would have to know in order to keep it a secret for whatever not-so-aparent reason.

No they wouldn't, there could be people above them that the public doesn't know about who keep it secret, and if they don't know about it they certainly can't tell anyone.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Hole in the acceleration theory.
« on: February 27, 2007, 03:03:52 PM »
What makes you so sure the sun's made of a bunch of molten metal goop?

Pages: [1]