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 - Gumwars

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunray Goes Down and then Up Like a Parabola Curve
« on: February 25, 2022, 06:50:25 AM »
"We also know that in general it causes light to curve down in the atmosphere, not up."

~ Thank you for denying the bright cloud at the above picture.
Try again 👌

Danang, he isn't denying anything.  The cloud at the top of the picture is uncontroversially lit by the sun due to its altitude in relation to the other clouds in the photo.  You are literally taking a completely benign photo and drumming up a conspiracy where none exists. 

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunray Goes Down and then Up Like a Parabola Curve
« on: February 19, 2022, 06:56:49 AM »
Look the two layer of the clouds:
The lower cloud got the sunshine, the higher cloud, its underneath look dark.

The sun position is higher than the horizon. She ain't rise nor set.

Dude, there's nothing weird about this photo.  First off, the picture was taken from something at a pretty significant elevation.  The clouds at the bottom of the photo are cumulus that appear anywhere between 200' up to roughly 7,000'.  Those in the center of the photo are likely stratocumulus that also appear in the same band of altitudes with cumulus clouds.  If I had to guess, the first cloud layer is somewhere around 1,000' to 2,000' AGL (above ground level) and the second around 6,000' AGL.  The third cloud layer is above the second and looks like altocumulus, which can't appear below or co-altitude with the cloud layers I've described above.  Altocumulus start to appear at around 6,500' AGL up to approximately 23,000' AGL.  Looking at how the light is hitting that third cloud layer, I'd say that's around 10,000' to 14,000' AGL.  There's a fourth cloud layer in the photo and it looks like it is directly behind the third layer; it looks faint and grayish.  Those are cirrus clouds and are at very high altitude, somewhere well above 23,000' AGL. 

So, here's a question for you; where did you get this photo?  Could you provide a link to an unaltered version (no fingers pointing to anything)?  Also, if you're correct and the sun's rays don't travel in straight lines but in a parabolic fashion, are you sure the picture matches what that would look like and, more importantly, why would the sun's light behave this way (regardless of the Earth's shape)?

3
Flat Earth General / Re: heads up to newcomers
« on: February 18, 2022, 09:45:57 AM »
Can't the same be said for anything?   Think about 9-11.  None of the weather/traffic cams of the day caught any jet aircraft arcing across the sky headed into the two biggest cities on the east coast.  So what does that mean?  It means none of the traffic/weather cams caught any jet aircraft arcing across the city skyline. 

This is flat out wrong.  I was an air traffic controller shortly after 9-11.  The folks that hijacked those aircraft turned the transponders off, meaning ATC only had raw radar returns to track them by.  ATC Centers (the FAA facilities that control most of the airspace above 10,000ft.) and several terminal approach controls use a system called Micro E-ARTS, which is an array of radar stations.  Those systems are highly dependent on aircraft having a transponder and that those transponders are turned on and working.  Being able to see a raw radar return on a scope isn't easy, especially when you factor in ground clutter, flocks of birds, VFR pilots that are flying around at low altitudes without their transponders turned on (because they don't need to talk to ATC). 

And what do you mean there weren't any cameras watching planes fly through the sky?  How would you even know that a commercial flight going overhead wasn't on a terminal departure route, jet route, or arrival procedure?  On 9-11 those flights likely looked like every other commercial plane in the sky until they were too low, and by then it was too late.  Those planes were probably in the background of all sorts of surveillance footage, but they didn't look out of the ordinary until they deviated to a point where we all saw them hitting those buildings...on camera

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunray Goes Down and then Up Like a Parabola Curve
« on: February 18, 2022, 07:48:06 AM »
The sun’s altitude at horizon is higher than the cloud, that’s why the distant cloud’s underneath looks dark. However, the nearer cloud’s underneath looks bright. So, the sunray goes down and up Like parabola curve.



Danang, that cloud at the top of the picture is at a higher altitude and further away.  There's nothing controversial here.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 18, 2022, 07:43:03 AM »
WISHTOLAUGH is a troll and a boring one at that.  Reading through his post history here along with my encounters with him elsewhere leaves the impression that he isn't even talented at arguing a point to the level of his peers.  It's all hand waving and deflection.  At least with the more imaginative FE'ers we get a higher quality brand of nonsense. 

With WISH, it's just boring crap.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using a telescope across the Atlantic Ocean
« on: February 05, 2022, 12:33:16 PM »
So you want to convince someone that the EF model (whatever that is) states that you can't see beyond a distance calculated in an RE model (whatever that is), as long as that distance is horizontal.

I believe you are conflating two different schools here, that being the belief that the world is a sphere (RE, or Round Earth) and that of FE (Flat Earth).  Atmospheric (or in this case "atmoplanic") interference is commonly used as an explanation why you can't see these great distances if the world is flat.  However, this isn't the reason why distance is a limiting factor if the world is a sphere.  Obviously, in the latter case, if the world is round, the planet itself is the reason why your vision is limited.  At no point will a person who believes the Earth is round tell you atmosphere will prevent you from seeing a great distance.  It may cause distortion but if there isn't any particulate like smoke or dust, you would only be limited by the quality of the optics to resolve whatever you're trying to see.

But if the distance is vertical, then we can look at the “universe of infinite galaxies”, as false science says.

Have you ever wondered why most observatories that use optical telescopes are located on top of hills or in places where they are naturally elevated?  That's because the air would be thinner and less prone to a phenomenon known as jitter, which is caused by those aforementioned distortions.  Obviously, telescopes (both radio and optical) placed in orbit see the furthest because it removes the problem with the atmosphere entirely. 

Further, and I hope you ponder this, if the world is flat and the atmoplane effectively prevented you from seeing a considerable distance, wouldn't that mean the sun would simply fade from view at sunset?  It would eventually reach a point where the atmoplane would prevent any light from reaching your eyes due to whatever mechanic is at play preventing us from seeing considerable distances, causing it to gradually get dimmer, and dimmer till it was far enough away to blot it out.  Instead, it does dim but instead of gradually dimming to a point where it fades away, it vanishes over the horizon (another visual cue regarding the shape of the planet). 

Because the sun does indeed vanish all at once over the horizon we observe two important things; the first is the FE modeled distance between the Earth and the sun must be well more than what is commonly believed at roughly 4000 miles or the distance at which the atmoplane obscures vision is far greater than 4000 miles, as evidenced by what we can see with our own eyes.  If the former, what distance is the sun from the Earth?  If the latter, the question remains why can't we see these great distances because we have direct evidence that there are at least two objects (the sun and moon) that we can see. 

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 05, 2022, 08:05:47 AM »
In case somebody can follow up my works, including you Gumwars, feel free to do it. Just notify it to me. If not interested, that's okay.

Not sure what I could offer.  Do you mean peer review?

Illustration: from Tokyo to Seattle by ship, instead of repeatedly doing a number of right handed little turns, why not go straight southeastwards from the beginning?

If you start the process by assuming the Earth is flat and try to work the problem backwards from that answer, then I can see how you'd think this is the case.  However, a ship that departs Tokyo and navigates east to Seattle will likely not make a series of small right-handed turns.  It will hold a bearing and likely follow that course the entire time it proceeds across the Pacific.  A straight line on a sphere looks curved if you flatten the sphere out, but is still a straight line relative to that spherical geometry. 

The better question to ask in this situation is why does a ship or aircraft hold a single bearing across these great distances rather than make a series of turns?  If you have the chance to take a cruise on a big ship or happen to know a pilot that flies commercial aircraft, ask them that question? 

So far phew's works were followed up by random people without notification and they took economical advantages over my inventions.

Who?

UFO mechanism, hovering airplane, etc.
If someday you'll see a low noise aircraft, you might consider if this is originally a phew work.

Too bad, right now my priority is not phew. So, what reason makes me have to hurry completing my work if nobody got interested? 🤔

Wait, are you claiming phew physics has cracked the code on these types of aircraft?  Care to offer an example of how something like a UFO works?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 03, 2022, 07:15:11 AM »
It's hard to beat maths pi, so that maths phew failed.

Because maths is transparent.

Physics Phew?
That's the Mission Possible.  8)

Brother, I'm still waiting for you to explain how someone would use one of your maps.  I'd take one thing at a time; finish the last task before you try taking on something else.  Trying to replace all physics with your Phew thing?  Tall order, to say the least.  Top that off with the fact you're trying to modify or refute centuries of work and I think you may have bitten off way more than you can chew.

Just an observation.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: February 02, 2022, 06:49:37 AM »
Who says I'm always right?
.
.
.
.
.

My cat  8)

Now we all know for a fact you're lying.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: November 02, 2021, 08:10:23 AM »
I actually enjoy reading what you say, jack.
This is what I class as getting down to the basics of logical thought.
Nice one.

Scepti, no where in jack[string of numbers]'s rant is there a shred of logic.  Not deductive, not abductive, not inductive; this is a pure, incoherent stream of red herrings.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA Artemis
« on: October 25, 2021, 01:12:04 PM »
I'm arguing against space and the shenanigans, not alarms and what not.

Scepti, you're arguing against a lot more than that.  I provided a video here some time ago showing an uncut shot of the lunar module ascending from the Moon's surface to the command module in orbit.  This film was shot in 1969 and shows the LM go from not being resolvable (you can't see it) to it being completely in view.  You've made claims that CGI was a possible solution, let me very clear, it wasn't. 

In 1969, the Apollo guidance computer had a maximum memory of 72Kb.  For reference, one or two pages from one post on this forum are probably more than that.  To say that a computer of that age could even come close to creating an image of that fidelity isn't just a stretch, it strains past the breaking point any believability of what a computer can even accomplish.  TRON came out in 1982 and computers of that age didn't even have the ability to do realtime renders.  Animators of that day didn't even know what the image would look like when they were creating them.  These shapes were plotted using three-axis geometry and then the renders would take days to bake.  They'd come back and see what turned out and hope everything was where it was supposed to be.  So, to think that computers from more than a decade earlier could do it better and with a greater degree of fidelity ignores Moore's Law, the technology of the time, and what was possible even with conventional special effects.

Marooned (the film) came out in 1969 and represents what a large budget film of the time could do with space-based special effects.  The budget for that film was between $8 and 10 million, adjusted for inflation, about $75 million today.  I'm giving up those numbers to represent that the film wasn't a B-movie, but if you watch it, it isn't even on the same page as that lunar ascent film.  In order to pull that shot off, you'd need a number of things that just aren't possible if you shot it on Earth. 

To your credit, the CIA apparently did look at trying to fake the moon landing.  However, after talking to the folks at NASA, they concluded that making it believable would be impossible.  The USSR would have caught the deception and made the US look like fools on the world stage.  It would have required special effects technology to be created that didn't exist at the time of the Apollo program, and represented an unknown cost that no one of that day had any clue would take to pull off.  What NASA did know, is that a lunar mission was possible.  They had already proven that orbital operations were possible with Mercury, and that ship-to-ship intercept and docking could be accomplished through Gemini.  Apollo could be done, and they did it.

Why is that so hard to believe?

12
Flat Earth General / Re: The Music Experiment
« on: October 25, 2021, 07:06:10 AM »
John, do you know what atmospheric inversion is and how that might affect sound wave propagation?  In particular, in this experiment, you're performing this from an island in the Atlantic, surrounded by water.  That water will have a cooling effect on the air, especially the air close to it.  As you gain altitude, that temperature gradient will go from cooler air, to warmer air, and then likely back to cool again.  Those layers of air with differing temperatures will change how sound moves through them.

This is in the same bucket as the string experiment.  I'm curious if you've actually tried this, if you have any data to show for it, or if you have the process in steps for us to try and recreate it.  No, your poetic narrative, while very nice, does not suffice.   

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: check my FET
« on: October 11, 2021, 08:00:31 AM »
Do you know the distances involved? how close are they to the described curvature?

I do.  Roughly 30 miles (48.7 KM).  At sea level, the horizon is about 3 miles from wherever you might be standing.  Standing on the beach in Long Beach, CA, you are at sea level, so anything further than 3 miles from the shore and beyond is obscured (depending on the distance from the viewer) by the curvature of the planet.  At 30 miles, Avalon is not visible.  The entire port is obscured.  Catalina Island, however, is totally visible with it being, at its tallest, 2000 ft above sea level.  But because Avalon is also at sea level, you can't see it from Long Beach no matter how high-powered your optics are.  Your line of sight is blocked by the curvature of planet Earth.

For those skeptics wondering, I live in California and have sat on the beach at the locations described and this is what I've seen.  I've also seen the container ships and oil derricks in various states of being obscured by the curvature as well.  It's not controversial. 

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: check my FET
« on: October 07, 2021, 06:51:34 AM »
First thing  - can i ever see earths curvature from the ground and how.

Yup.  Go to Long Beach, California.  Watch out for tarballs.  Turn west and look at Catalina Island.  Avalon is a port on the east side of the island, facing Long Beach.  Tell me if you see it.  If you can, the Earth is definitely flat.  If you can't, guess what?  You are looking at the curvature of the planet obscure your line of sight.  If you want to take it a step further, head over to Balboa Island and hop on the Catalina Flyer.  It runs daily and you can sit on the bow and watch Avalon come into view as you approach it.  It is literally coming over the curve of the planet.

15
Danang, just like the time you presented your map and I asked you to demonstrate how someone would use it to navigate, I'm going to ask you another question:

Using your PHEW FE model, please tell me when the next solar eclipse will happen and where will it be visible from.  Please show how you calculated your prediction.  I would rate the success of the PHEW model based on its accuracy as compared to the RE/HC model. 

Thanks.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: September 11, 2021, 06:35:46 AM »
Jack, the lights are on but nobody's home. 

17
The Lounge / Re: Let's talk about diabetes.
« on: September 09, 2021, 10:39:10 AM »
My wife is an RN at a community living center for the VA.  She sees a lot of patients with T2 and recommends mostly what you've already discussed; better diet, avoid processed foods, exercise.  You'll need to be especially careful around sweets.  Stuff like a single piece of hard candy or a chocolate kiss can throw your blood sugar out of whack.  It sucks that you'll need to plan around what you can and can't eat but if you take care of yourself now, you can reverse a lot of the damage before it gets real shitty.

My wife also handles those folks that have let T2 go to the extreme.  Amputations, impaired or destroyed kidney function, loss of vision, etc.  You don't want it to get that far, make positive change now before your life starts getting dominated by this condition. 

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Mythbusters did the moon landing
« on: August 19, 2021, 01:13:45 PM »
Quote from: snomial
When you start looking for it, it really is staggering how much round earthers rely on cheap manipulation and fallacies in place of any actual argument. It reminds me of those life hack channels on youtube, able to dress something up pretty and avoiding giving any explanation, getting a huge amount of followers and making bank while spreading outright lies and even dangerous ideas.

'This small thing you can do at home will change how you see the world! Trust us!'

What fallacy do you see being invoked here?  What's manipulative about HAM radios and moon bounce experiments?

Quote from: snomial
I see that book brought up far more by round earthers than flat earthers. And leaders? They are sources, but most don't follow them blindly. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely so mindless that you can't see the difference. Are you really that unfamiliar with the in-fighting?

Actually, the in-fighting is something that gets mentioned often.  FE has no cohesion, no collective idea.  Is it an infinite plane?  Is there a firmament?  Is it heliocentric?  Is it universal acceleration?  So many ideas and nothing other than the basic shape that unifies them.  No map.  No reproducible experiments.  No formulas that account for 'ether'.  No explanations outside blind refutations of more commonly accepted theories.  Even among your contemporaries here, snomial, you have no consensus. 

Quote from: snomial
When Neil Degrasse Tyson says something, you believe him because he said it.

When a person with recognized credentials, in this case, a BA from Harvard in Physics, a MA in Astronomy from the University of Texas Austin, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Columbia University talks about something from their field, that would be an expert discussing their subject.  I don't believe everything he says because sometimes he talks about stuff that isn't in his wheelhouse.  However, when he talks about physics, astronomy, or astrophysics, I have no reason to not believe him.  He's been reliably correct, has provided a number of contributions to the scientific community, and has done a lot to bring astronomy back into the public view.

Quote from: snomial
Round Earthers say "You won't understand, but believe it anyway." Flat Earthers say "Here is the evidence."

Did you actually say this?  With a straight face?  After the whole rain isn't droplets of water but rather lines debacle?  Are you trying to be funny or is this a serious attempt at being ironic? 

Do you want to discuss the moon landing or are you going to rant off topic as normal?


19
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Axl Rose a fellow flath earth believer?
« on: August 19, 2021, 12:36:47 PM »
Bump.

Very much interested in what you may have discovered Mr. Davis.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Mount Everest
« on: August 16, 2021, 08:30:18 AM »
So the Earth is round then?

Don't be hasty.  Just wait for the community to warm up a bit. 

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Is Axl Rose a fellow flath earth believer?
« on: August 15, 2021, 08:15:08 AM »
I'm not sure what to make of it, but this website is listed as a charity in the People's Republic of China.  Didn't know John was into helping out overseas like that...

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Please Participate in my Research Project
« on: August 12, 2021, 05:33:38 AM »
Does anyone else find this whole thread incredibly suspicious?  An English 102 project in July?? 


23
Flat Earth General / Re: Dark theory regarding Stephen Hawking
« on: August 12, 2021, 05:27:10 AM »
I think you are an idiot.

You're right

This sums up the thread pretty well.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: July 08, 2021, 09:05:26 AM »
Let's all be clear.
There's a hell of a lot of stuff we're arguing about which is basically hard to impossible to relicate from mindset to actual physical proof.
That goes for me and other who think alternately to a globe and also goes exactly the same for the global mindset of people.

In this particular case, I've done work with cable and rope up to a mile long and can attest that it is impossible to pull all the slack out at distances more than a dozen yards or so.  I'd even say that at a dozen yards, there's going to be sag but would be hard to tell without some precise measuring equipment.  That's why you've run into resistance on this particular topic.  I wouldn't say there are experiments that are hard or impossible to replicate that provide actual proof.  For example, you and I could carry out Eratosthenes' experiment as I'm guessing you don't live on the US West Coast.  That one is pretty doable and will tell you straight up if the world is flat or not. 

I messed up in mine and if I don't own up to it then there's no point in me carrying on delving.
The same has to apply to all, including global minded people.

I appreciate the candour.



The amended answer would be, if you do not see Any protruding marker along the 201 metre  distance using a levelled scope at the start point, levelled and cross hair centred along the market top, the the Earth is to a globe.


If the centre marker becomes visible and omits the farthest two markers, you have a good case for a globe.

Now then, we are talking half an inch to an inch difference but this could be extended with a laser or scope.

The laser one simply does a similar thing as in, if the laser hits the centre marker and doesn't hit a board (for instance) at the other end above the centre marker to farthest two markers, then another case for a globe.

If the laser hits the board then the Earth is not  globe.

It's up to genuine people to go and test it.

You know an FE supporter carried out this experiment already, right?

25
Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: July 07, 2021, 07:37:25 AM »
John Davis posited a similar experiment and the same defect was noted. 

This all begs the question, did John or Scepti attempt the experiment posed?  John never came clean when pressed on this subject and I highly doubt sceptimatic will either.  If either had, as you pointed out, they'd quickly discover that no length of line, cable, or rope can be pulled taut enough, without breaking, to carry out this experiment. 

26
Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: July 01, 2021, 08:33:29 AM »
If you are stood on one side of a hill and your friend is on the other side, you can understand that you are obstructed by a hump...a curve from you to your friend.

If you want to make that hill less severe so you can see your friend but place a string line from you to your friend so it touches the top of the hill as you both hold it, you'll see the hill from the side as curving down from the string as would your friend.



Scepti, have you performed this experiment?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: FE Experiment - Water Level
« on: June 30, 2021, 01:06:32 PM »
Water level.

For a globe to work there must always be a water hump. Yes, a water HUMP from your vision at one point to an object over the calm water.

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.
You can place 5 equal sized markers along a 201 metre line.
Attach the line exactly on top of the start and end markers.
Rest the line atop the central marker between the start and end markers.
If the Earth (water) is flat and level the string line should also be touching the tops of the other two markers left and right of centre.


If the string line does not touch the left and right of centre markers and those markers are below the line, then the argument for a globe is valid.


All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.
One each end to ensure the string line is taut and a person to video that string line resting on centre and to verify whether left and right of centre have a string line touching or not touching.


Something like this.



Can you draw this "hump" into your marker diagram, I'm not seeing how your globe earth example causes marker 2 and 4 to dip below markers 1-3 and 3-5?

This is a hot mess.

28
Whats actually happened is Snomo emboldened by your validation of the flat earth non science is carrying on as though it has some legitimacy.
Thats the problem when people give flat earth garbage the time of day. it does however satisfy the old systems adage; Rubbish in Rubbish out.

I see this as an a double edged knife.  On one hand, I agree, that by giving attention to FE, it elevates the idea and treats it as an equal on the same stage with other legitimate scientific endeavors.  Does that cast a shadow on those efforts that aren't conspiratorial?  Do we amplify the voice of FE by arguing against it?  I honestly don't know.  I know that light is the best disinfectant and truth, along with the pursuit of it, is always a positive both individually and collectively. 

On the other hand, if left unchecked, does this oubliette of the internet become the breeding ground for the next QAnon?  I know that may be a bit extreme; this isn't 4Chan and I don't see any actors here that make me think this could be the launch pad for some new form of extremism.  That doesn't change the fact that the effort of arguing against the points comprising FE are a useful exercise.  It seems so easy to argue against but, as I am sure you've found out, the folks that line up here are built different.  While I disagree with their methods as they are far, far removed from both rational thought or logical form, you will not find more willing dance partners for the most bizarre topics you'd ever find yourself party to. 

To me, I don't think arguing these points on this forum creates much controversy by way of legitimizing FE.  Scientific American, National Geographic, and Popular Science aren't looking here for their next article.  I bet TLC or Discovery could put together a kick ass reality TV show, though...

29
why every other planet round tho? Y'all also apart of the "gravity is a myth society" xqcT

Only the ones we have observed directly. The exo planets we have detected, their shapes are only assumed round.

i mean they are assumed round cause of gravity... so like we just breaking a law of physics by being flat? We special here on earth or what?

Gravity is a theory - not enough information or understanding is known about it yet to be a law

That's not entirely correct.  Newton's Laws of Motion are inclusive of the force known as gravity.  We're still peeling the layers of the onion, so to speak, regarding the nuances of how matter curves space time on a quantum level.  However, how gravity works outside of the quantum realm is established.  Further, within the scientific community theories don't dream someday of becoming laws.  Laws are axiomatic or nearly so; they are largely self-evident; think Ohm's Law as an example.  Theories are more complex and require deeper analysis, but can be just as assertive as a "law"; an example would be Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. 

30
You are literally still completely ignoring every word I have said.

No, I'm not.  You're baselessly asserting that I am in an effort to derail this discussion.

The model is not showing 'how light needs to behave in order to reflect the real world.' It does not account for the variables it needs to. Stop ignoring this.

You're misrepresenting what I said.  The model is showing how light needs to behave, not why it behaves that way.  Your irrelevant point about variables is conflating the why with the how.  Now, if you're saying the model is entirely wrong, then that is a different matter.  So far, that doesn't appear to be what you are saying.  I would ask that if it is wrong, what would be a more accurate presentation?


You cannot model anything if you don't account for all the variables.

What did Ptolemy do?  What did Copernicus do?  Those were models, each with varying degrees of accuracy, that did not account for all variables. 

You can't just pretend what I'm saying isn't relevant. It isn't showing 'how light needs to behave,' it's assuming a falsehood.

You misunderstand the point of the model.  As I've stated before, it reflects how light must behave if the Earth is flat and the sun/moon are on a plane above it, moving in a circle over it.  You ignored, entirely, my example discussing the sun and how it rises and sets in relation to this model.  That's the point and the reason you're not succeeding in proving your claim here.  The model shows us what light must do to create sunrises and sunsets on a flat Earth.  Let say, for the sake of your argument, that you are correct and there's this thing called 'ether', and it is responsible for these manifestations as we see them.  If the Earth is flat and presents as it does with the Gleason map, and the sun's location is this point some 4000 miles above us and isn't a ball of fusion 860000 miles wide but a much smaller, closer object, then how must light behave?  Do I need to necessarily know how ether interacts with light to model it?  I have two sides of this theoretical triangle; the object and it's approximate distance, where I'm at and what I see.  If I know what the observer sees and I know the location of the object, then I can determine what the light being cast by that object must do to reach me, the observer. 

It gives us those sliders. They are not sufficient. It is that simple, and you are still persisting in ignoring me. What do you think 'rayparam' means?

Light ray parameter and it appears to affect the amount that light bends between the source and observer.  Snomial, trust me, I'm not ignoring you.  What I don't understand is why you can't seem to figure out that the model shows how and doesn't need to show why.  If your issue is with how the model is presented (location of the sun/moon, shape of the Earth) then be specific.  Your argument up to this point is that the model lacks specificity regarding how the ether interacts with light.  If all we are interested in, at this point, is modeling how light travels from source to observer, then we don't need to know any details about that interaction, only that something is influencing the path that the light is taking. 

What changes need to be made to this model to properly reflect whatever it is you believe is missing?  How is this model misrepresenting reality? 


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24