If the world is flat

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread. The aether was disproved by Michelson and Morley, years ago.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that if the earth was flat it would be infinite. Absolutely none.

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

What causes sunlight to travel shorter distances at different times? Magical dark energy from the mystical land of wizards and poop?

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour in a vacuum.

Fixed because light travels at different speeds in different media (making refraction possible).

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Do you know what aether is composed of?

Quote from: John Davis on September 19, 2009, 10:16:25 AM

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Do you know what aether is composed of?

You didn't notice the bit where I said aether has been disproved? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.

Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.

Quote from: Ambrosiah on September 19, 2009, 07:31:07 PM

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 19, 2009, 12:47:53 PM

Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.

Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.

I didn't need to disprove it using mathematics. I pointed out that your stupid bendy light theory which you think causes sunsets and sunrises, would lead to a view of the sun appearing to be superimposed on the ground when viewed from altitude. Senoctar provided a diagram to show this also. Since this was totally at odds with observed phenomena, it straightaway renders the bendy light theory null and void.
General relativity does not make any claims that light bends, per se. It proposes that spacetime itself is distorted by mass, causing it to curve. For an observer within the same area of spacetime as a beam of light which may look curved to us, such as through gravitational lensing, that beam would appear to be going straight. This sort of deviation of the path of light is completely different from the made up bendy light that you're so fond of, and which there is not a shred of evidence for without using an assumption of a flat earth as a reference.
And no, I can't link you to the thread because I can't remember which one it was. I suggest you search moar.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:28:24 AM

Quote from: Ambrosiah on September 19, 2009, 07:31:07 PM

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 19, 2009, 12:47:53 PM

Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.

Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.

I didn't need to disprove it using mathematics.

Math is the language of science. The burden of proof is on you.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 10:59:13 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:28:24 AM

Quote from: Ambrosiah on September 19, 2009, 07:31:07 PM

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 19, 2009, 12:47:53 PM

Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.

Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.

I didn't need to disprove it using mathematics.

Math is the language of science. The burden of proof is on you.

Utter nonsense. To use your example: one could easily write a mathematical formula describing how if one dropped an apple, it would fly upwards into the air. One could write equations describing this, how the mass, shape, air resistance, density of the apple could affect the force and speed at which it flew upwards. Or, if one preferred, sideways. Using these equations one could describe the motion of a feather, an armoured car or a horse as they were dropped, without needing to do the experiment.
Yet these equations would conflict completely with observed data, so no matter how carefully they were created, they'd be wrong. So, Wilcox, if one can demonstrate an observable difference, then the maths can be scrapped right there. Because it's describing something that doesn't happen. Nobody ever sees the Sun superimposed over the ground from an aircraft: therefore the stupid FE bendy light idea bites the dust. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 12:36:36 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 10:59:13 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on September 20, 2009, 06:28:24 AM

Quote from: Ambrosiah on September 19, 2009, 07:31:07 PM

Light only travels one speed..300,000 Kilometers per hour.

There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 19, 2009, 12:47:53 PM

Bending of light has been disproved by myself and Senoctar in another thread.

Could you please link me to this thread? I'm very interested to know how you disproved such complicated mathematics as those involved in general relativity.

I didn't need to disprove it using mathematics.

Math is the language of science. The burden of proof is on you.

Utter nonsense. To use your example: one could easily write a mathematical formula describing how if one dropped an apple, it would fly upwards into the air. One could write equations describing this, how the mass, shape, air resistance, density of the apple could affect the force and speed at which it flew upwards. Or, if one preferred, sideways. Using these equations one could describe the motion of a feather, an armoured car or a horse as they were dropped, without needing to do the experiment.
Yet these equations would conflict completely with observed data, so no matter how carefully they were created, they'd be wrong. So, Wilcox, if one can demonstrate an observable difference, then the maths can be scrapped right there. Because it's describing something that doesn't happen. Nobody ever sees the Sun superimposed over the ground from an aircraft: therefore the stupid FE bendy light idea bites the dust. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.

Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.

Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 05:09:53 PM

Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.

Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.

Air is not transparent...

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 05:16:24 PM

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 05:09:53 PM

Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.

Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.

Air is not transparent...

This is like watching a feebly struggling insect being web wrapped by a spider.

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 05:18:23 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 05:16:24 PM

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 05:09:53 PM

Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.

Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.

Air is not transparent...

This is like watching a feebly struggling insect being web wrapped by a spider.

The upper forums are for serious discussions only.

Air is not transparent...

Actually, it is.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 05:16:24 PM

Quote from: Kathleen Wilcox on September 20, 2009, 05:09:53 PM

Unfortunately for you, bendy light has been observed. It is why ships sink over the horizon. Good luck with your pseudoscience.

Unfortunately for you, there's another explanation of why ships sink over the horizon, but there is NO other explanation of why the Sun does not appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude during sunrise/sunset. If bendy light explains one, it has to explain the other. But it can't. Now run along and study your chemistry. You are going to have to put in a hell of a lot of effort if you want to pass.

Air is not transparent...

You have incredible eyesight.

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 08:01:55 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 19, 2009, 10:16:25 AM

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Do you know what aether is composed of?

You didn't notice the bit where I said aether has been disproved? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Thats not a disproof of aether at all.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 04:50:08 AM

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 08:01:55 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 19, 2009, 10:16:25 AM

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Do you know what aether is composed of?

You didn't notice the bit where I said aether has been disproved? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Thats not a disproof of aether at all.

Irrelevant whether you think it is or not: the bendy light theory has been disproved independently by myself and Senoctar due to differences with observed data.
As for aether, a similar example would be if I claimed that somewhere in the universe was a planet inhabited by plastic dinosaurs with light bulb eyes. Nobody has found the planet, its existence was not necessary to explain anything we see around us in the cosmos, and there is no evidence the planet exists at all, or the dinosaurs on it. Yet there is of course an infinitesimally small possibility that this planet might perchance exist, which can never be 100% disproved. That's pretty much the status of aether, Davis, except even more tenuous.

Quote from: John Davis on September 21, 2009, 02:42:48 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 20, 2009, 04:50:08 AM

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 08:01:55 PM

Quote from: John Davis on September 19, 2009, 10:16:25 AM

Quote from: Taylor Swift on September 19, 2009, 10:06:45 AM

How come do ships appear to sink before the horizon?

How do you explain the seasons?

How big is the earth?

Light bends due to aether.

The sunlight travels shorter distances during different seasons.

The earth is infinite.

Do you know what aether is composed of?

You didn't notice the bit where I said aether has been disproved? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Thats not a disproof of aether at all.

Irrelevant whether you think it is or not: the bendy light theory has been disproved independently by myself and Senoctar due to differences with observed data.
As for aether, a similar example would be if I claimed that somewhere in the universe was a planet inhabited by plastic dinosaurs with light bulb eyes. Nobody has found the planet, its existence was not necessary to explain anything we see around us in the cosmos, and there is no evidence the planet exists at all, or the dinosaurs on it. Yet there is of course an infinitesimally small possibility that this planet might perchance exist, which can never be 100% disproved. That's pretty much the status of aether, Davis, except even more tenuous.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is or whether I don't.

If you read even as much as the title of the page you linked, you would know it wasn't.

Luminiferous aether.

Weird, that has nothign to do with what you're talking about.

And there are SO MANY flaws with bendy light and EA.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is or whether I don't.

If you read even as much as the title of the page you linked, you would know it wasn't.

My point was it doesn't matter whether aether is disproved or not, because light doesn't bend like you think it does - therefore the existence or otherwise of aether is an irrelevance. The fact that it has been about as disproved as anything can be (it doesn't interact with anything, it has no measurable effect on anything, it cannot be detected even when you're looking for it and effects that should indicate its presence are not found) is not relevant to whether one refers to it as Luminiferous or not. It's the same stuff. Or is this some new whizz-bang magic aether you made up to explain stuff which is somehow different?

Quote from: John Davis on September 21, 2009, 03:37:27 PM

It has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is or whether I don't.

If you read even as much as the title of the page you linked, you would know it wasn't.

My point was it doesn't matter whether aether is disproved or not, because light doesn't bend like you think it does - therefore the existence or otherwise of aether is an irrelevance. The fact that it has been about as disproved as anything can be (it doesn't interact with anything, it has no measurable effect on anything, it cannot be detected even when you're looking for it and effects that should indicate its presence are not found) is not relevant to whether one refers to it as Luminiferous or not. It's the same stuff. Or is this some new whizz-bang magic aether you made up to explain stuff which is somehow different?

Your point clearly was that aether has been disproven.  It has not.

The fact that an experiment has not been designed properly to detect it does not mean its not there bending light.

Its not the same stuff, or one wouldn't label them differently.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 22, 2009, 09:40:16 AM

Quote from: John Davis on September 21, 2009, 03:37:27 PM

It has nothing to do with whether or not I think it is or whether I don't.

If you read even as much as the title of the page you linked, you would know it wasn't.

My point was it doesn't matter whether aether is disproved or not, because light doesn't bend like you think it does - therefore the existence or otherwise of aether is an irrelevance. The fact that it has been about as disproved as anything can be (it doesn't interact with anything, it has no measurable effect on anything, it cannot be detected even when you're looking for it and effects that should indicate its presence are not found) is not relevant to whether one refers to it as Luminiferous or not. It's the same stuff. Or is this some new whizz-bang magic aether you made up to explain stuff which is somehow different?

Your point clearly was that aether has been disproven.  It has not.

The fact that an experiment has not been designed properly to detect it does not mean its not there bending light.

Its not the same stuff, or one wouldn't label them differently.

OK let's draw an analogy with a debate in another thread - the difference between a universe in which aether exists and a universe where aether doesn't exist would be undetectable. Therefore even if aether exists, it's not the solution to anything. Therefore, it can be treated as nonexistent.

It's not there bending light, because if light bent as described by FET there would be observable effects... which cannot be observed in reality. I have lost count of the number of times I have stated and restated that if light bent as FET predicts the Sun would appear superimposed over the ground when viewed from altitude at sunset/sunrise and THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Sorry about the bold caps but it seems nobody was reading it the many times I posted it in normal text.

Davis, please now explain the difference between your magic aether and the aether described in the article I linked to.