The Suns Nuclear Fusion and the Transit of Venus

why would these things happen on a flat earth model??? The sun would be too small to start fusion in the first place and why is venus 'trasiting' across the suns face? , i would much like a reply. and since my last one was moved to anrgy ranting i would like to enforce the fact that i love FE'rs and i am enqirying into why these things happen , ty in advance

These phenomena have nothing to do with FE.  Sure, there are FE theorists who believe in a tiny, spotlight sun and the like, but a large hot sun 93 MegaMiles away, around which Venus orbits,  is quite consistent with other FE theories, such as the curved light theory.
So I'll leave the rest of this thread to the tiny sun folks.  Perhaps they can also explain the fact that sunspots appear to track across the surface of the sun, disappear, and reappear on the opposite limb.  Easy to explain with a rotating, spherical sun, but harder to do with a spotlight. 

k thnx, can someone who does belive in tiny sun tell me why?

and btw whats the light benmding theory? probly explained somewere but cant find in FAQ ty

The light bending theory is a theory that light bends sometimes, but only when it supports a flat earth.  This allows an explanation for the mast of a ship sinking into the horizon.  Of course, any idiot with a laser pointer could prove this false, but you're not supposed to think about that.

k ty s basicly more flat earth crap?

These phenomena have nothing to do with FE.  Sure, there are FE theorists who believe in a tiny, spotlight sun and the like, but a large hot sun 93 MegaMiles away, around which Venus orbits,  is quite consistent with other FE theories, such as the curved light theory.
So I'll leave the rest of this thread to the tiny sun folks.  Perhaps they can also explain the fact that sunspots appear to track across the surface of the sun, disappear, and reappear on the opposite limb.  Easy to explain with a rotating, spherical sun, but harder to do with a spotlight. 

In your "curved light theory" in which you're trying to reinvent physics, the sun could not be 93 million (not mega) miles.  If this was the case, then how would the seasons change, and why wouldn't the entire earth experience endless daylight? (Even when light curves in the way you've described, some rays are going to reach every part of the earth, because light is being emitted in every single direction.)  After this, I'm not going to bother responding to anymore of your pseudo-science posts.  If you are confident in this theory, go out and perform an experiment to prove it that can be replicated.  That means no lying about results.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Theories are made to describe observed phenomena.  Theories are NOT made to fill in the gaps of other theories.

The series of theories around the RE model were all created due to observed relationships.  Gravitational force, for example, was created due to observations, measurements, and calculations.  From these, physicists found that gravitational force between two masses is proportional to the product of those two masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared. 

They DIDN'T just think to themselves: wouldn't it be nice if all masses had an attraction to other masses? Then our theory would be much more plausible.
^^But that's what you're doing^^

so two flat earthers are arguing two differnt sun theorys, both with large flaws? nice

The light bending theory is a theory that light bends sometimes, but only when it supports a flat earth.  This allows an explanation for the mast of a ship sinking into the horizon.  Of course, any idiot with a laser pointer could prove this false, but you're not supposed to think about that.

I explain it on the thread "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries".
Perhaps an idiot with a laser pointer would think he had disproved it, but when I tried with my laser pointer, I found no problem.  The curve is only the same as the apparent Earth's curve, so hard to see over a distance of less than several miles.  And how do you prove it?  It looks straight?  Of course, because the light with which you see it is curved.  I'm using an independent standard, the Earth's surface, and light certainly curves away from its surface.

Wait for tom bishop to reply to this thread, his answer will convert you!

when that happens I'll marry George bush and have Ted Haggad's mutant babies.


(if he converts me I mean)

Quote from: Geoff on March 04, 2007, 09:41:05 AM

The light bending theory is a theory that light bends sometimes, but only when it supports a flat earth.  This allows an explanation for the mast of a ship sinking into the horizon.  Of course, any idiot with a laser pointer could prove this false, but you're not supposed to think about that.

I explain it on the thread "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries".
Perhaps an idiot with a laser pointer would think he had disproved it, but when I tried with my laser pointer, I found no problem.  The curve is only the same as the apparent Earth's curve, so hard to see over a distance of less than several miles.  And how do you prove it?  It looks straight?  Of course, because the light with which you see it is curved.  I'm using an independent standard, the Earth's surface, and light certainly curves away from its surface.

Why? wouldn't light from the sun curve up and away from the earth then?

Which direction does Light curve in in the curved light theory? Whichever way suits a Flat Earth at the time yes?

whichever way the government leads you to believe

Quote from: EricTheRed on March 04, 2007, 10:07:09 AM

Quote from: Geoff on March 04, 2007, 09:41:05 AM

The light bending theory is a theory that light bends sometimes, but only when it supports a flat earth.  This allows an explanation for the mast of a ship sinking into the horizon.  Of course, any idiot with a laser pointer could prove this false, but you're not supposed to think about that.

I explain it on the thread "Why ships' hulls disappear, photos from space and other mysteries".
Perhaps an idiot with a laser pointer would think he had disproved it, but when I tried with my laser pointer, I found no problem.  The curve is only the same as the apparent Earth's curve, so hard to see over a distance of less than several miles.  And how do you prove it?  It looks straight?  Of course, because the light with which you see it is curved.  I'm using an independent standard, the Earth's surface, and light certainly curves away from its surface.

Why? wouldn't light from the sun curve up and away from the earth then?

Exactly - you've got it.  There is a diagram on that thread which shows exactly how that happens.

This is why the sun's light only covers a circle on the Earth. And if you're at the edge of the circle, you are seeing the sun's rays as almost horizontal - so it appears to be on the horizon.  And in that case, they are traveling further through the atmosphere, hence the red dawn and sunset, exactly as in RE theory.

Which direction does Light curve in in the curved light theory? Whichever way suits a Flat Earth at the time yes?

Pretty much.  When he goes into his theory, do us all a favor and ignore him.  In his original thread, I posted why it was ridiculous to create a theory to fit a theory as opposed to observations, and I posted it above again.  I also described an experiment he could carry out to test his hypothesis.  Of course, he ignored it.  Go figure.

I described an experiment too but I'm still waiting for the reason why it won't work, which I was promised!

I described an experiment too but I'm still waiting for the reason why it won't work, which I was promised!

You're not gonna get one, or if you do, it's going to be something non sequitur and probably infuriating.  He's essentially trying to reinvent well established principles of physics.  There's no point entertaining his ideas unless he claims to have observed it in some way.

Quote from: kasroa on March 04, 2007, 10:53:54 AM

Which direction does Light curve in in the curved light theory? Whichever way suits a Flat Earth at the time yes?

Pretty much.  When he goes into his theory, do us all a favor and ignore him.  In his original thread, I posted why it was ridiculous to create a theory to fit a theory as opposed to observations, and I posted it above again.  I also described an experiment he could carry out to test his hypothesis.  Of course, he ignored it.  Go figure.

If you're just going to ignore everyone, this forum will get boring.  My theory fits observations.  I explained many optical phenomena such as the apparent horizon, the setting sun, eclipses,...
I'm afraid I missed the experiment - I thought I got them all.  Please remind me, if you're not busy ignoring me, and I'll try again.

Quote from: The Philosopher on March 04, 2007, 11:04:23 AM

Quote from: kasroa on March 04, 2007, 10:53:54 AM

Which direction does Light curve in in the curved light theory? Whichever way suits a Flat Earth at the time yes?

Pretty much.  When he goes into his theory, do us all a favor and ignore him.  In his original thread, I posted why it was ridiculous to create a theory to fit a theory as opposed to observations, and I posted it above again.  I also described an experiment he could carry out to test his hypothesis.  Of course, he ignored it.  Go figure.

If you're just going to ignore everyone, this forum will get boring.  My theory fits observations.  I explained many optical phenomena such as the apparent horizon, the setting sun, eclipses,...
I'm afraid I missed the experiment - I thought I got them all.  Please remind me, if you're not busy ignoring me, and I'll try again.

The problem is that your theory explains phenomena, but they aren't phenomena if you just realize the earth is round.  Also, if the most obvious answer(the earth is round) is plausible there is no reason to try to prove light bends.

Edit:I realize that this is somewhat incoherent, but I don't care.

It was a very simple experiment using a perfectly flat level plane (created using a vertically mounted cutting laser so it didn't bend either way) made level using a spirit level made with the same technique. A mounted laser would fire at a target several dozen feet away and if it missed the right spot then we could measure how much it had curved upwards. It weouldn't actually have to be that long but if it was you could tell by naked eye.

If you're just going to ignore everyone, this forum will get boring.  My theory fits observations.  I explained many optical phenomena such as the apparent horizon, the setting sun, eclipses,...
I'm afraid I missed the experiment - I thought I got them all.  Please remind me, if you're not busy ignoring me, and I'll try again.

You explain phenomena, I never said you didn't.  But you didn't carry out any experiment to isolate the variable of the light's direction and path, thus observing something that would lead you to formulate a theory about how light travels.  These experiments have been done before.  They are how the principles of optics were derived.

Here's the experiment I described in your other thread:

With that laser (http://www.greenlaserbeam.com - which has a range of 12,000 feet) or another type of simple dot laser with similar range, something stationary to mount it on, and a level (a tool, which would work the same way in RE and FE due to the equivalence principle) to make sure the light is being shined parallel to the earth's gravitation, one would be able to shine it far enough to measure where the light beam is compared to where it should be if it were bending with the curvature of the earth. Shine it in a straight line at a given altitude (figure this out with , and measure it at different distances, up to 12,000 feet.  If the light curved it should be at different heights, should it not?  It would also be possible to measure these differences, no matter how slight they are, by using some form of magnification.

Do this for yourself.  You'll find the light beam travels in a straight line.

You could also shine it at a set angle towards the earth, and see if it travels in a straight line or not.  There are many ways to do this.  Choose one, do it, and get back to us.

It was a very simple experiment using a perfectly flat level plane (created using a vertically mounted cutting laser so it didn't bend either way) made level using a spirit level made with the same technique. A mounted laser would fire at a target several dozen feet away and if it missed the right spot then we could measure how much it had curved upwards. It weouldn't actually have to be that long but if it was you could tell by naked eye.

I thought I'd answered that one.  It's a complex answer so first an analogy.  Einstein was faced with the fact that  the velocity of light is constant, relative to anything.  So if a rocket were headed away from Earth at a constant half the speed of light,  and looked back, the pilot would still see light fired from Earth as approaching at the same speed of light.  So to fit that fact, he said that clocks would run slow and rigid bodies would shrink in the direction of travel only, by a factor just enough to account for that ( sqrt(1 - (v^2)/(c^2) ).   In other words, a cube distorts so it becomes flattened.  In fact, he claimed we do not live in Euclidean space, but instead in Minkowski space, which produces a different geometry.

By the same token, to account for the fact that your experiment would give the results you say it would (and I believe you), all I need to do is say that rigid bodies distort depending on their rotation, in such a way that something which started off as straight when vertical distorts when rotated into a horizontal position.  I'm just saying that to accommodate FE and the optical phenomena, we would have to adopt a projective Minkowski space.  Nothing inconsistent about that - just a bit more complex.

Surely it would just contract not actually bend.

These phenomena have nothing to do with FE.  Sure, there are FE theorists who believe in a tiny, spotlight sun and the like, but a large hot sun 93 MegaMiles away, around which Venus orbits,  is quite consistent with other FE theories, such as the curved light theory.
So I'll leave the rest of this thread to the tiny sun folks.  Perhaps they can also explain the fact that sunspots appear to track across the surface of the sun, disappear, and reappear on the opposite limb.  Easy to explain with a rotating, spherical sun, but harder to do with a spotlight. 

Nope. If the sun is that far away there is no way for there to be night and day on a flat Earth. 
Stop talking about your curved light theory.  You pulled it out of your ass.  You have no proof, you have no experiments to prove it.  I can't find my keys. My theory is that Aliens from space took them.  Thats pretty much what you did. 

Surely it would just contract not actually bend.

No, I'm using a projective transform, as explained in more detail on the "Earth's Shadow" thread earlier today.  Minkowski space just has contractions, as it's just Special Relativity.  GR has things bending too.

I thought I'd answered that one.  It's a complex answer so first an analogy.  Einstein was faced with the fact that  the velocity of light is constant, relative to anything.  So if a rocket were headed away from Earth at a constant half the speed of light,  and looked back, the pilot would still see light fired from Earth as approaching at the same speed of light.  So to fit that fact, he said that clocks would run slow and rigid bodies would shrink in the direction of travel only, by a factor just enough to account for that ( sqrt(1 - (v^2)/(c^2) ).   In other words, a cube distorts so it becomes flattened.  In fact, he claimed we do not live in Euclidean space, but instead in Minkowski space, which produces a different geometry.

1) A cube doesn't distort to become flattened.  On the contrary, it only appears to an observer as if the cube had contracted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-FitzGerald_contraction_hypothesis
2) Minkowski space is spacetime.  How does the addition of time as a fourth dimension support what you're saying?
3) I've heard other people (I think Tom) support their conjectures by saying that the FE works under a "different geometry."  So please explain exactly what about this geometry leads you to the conclusion that the earth is flat.

All I need to do is say that rigid bodies distort depending on their rotation, in such a way that something which started off as straight when vertical distorts when rotated into a horizontal position.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't seem like it could make much sense.  Nonetheless, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate.

I'm just saying that to accommodate FE and the optical phenomena, we would have to adopt a projective Minkowski space.  Nothing inconsistent about that - just a bit more complex.

Explain what you mean by "a projectve Minkowski space" as well as its implications.  You seem to spew terminology all over the place without describing its implications.

These phenomena have nothing to do with FE.  Sure, there are FE theorists who believe in a tiny, spotlight sun and the like, but a large hot sun 93 MegaMiles away, around which Venus orbits,  is quite consistent with other FE theories, such as the curved light theory.

I'm revisiting this quote because sokarul brought up a good point I can elaborate on.  The light rays coming from the sun into the atmosphere (if the sun is that far away) would essentially be parallel.  Thus almost all of the rays would be travelling vertically down (or close to it) and would bend the same exact way.  This makes the horizon illusion, night/day, and all the other phenomena you described impossible under this curved-light theory.

1) A cube doesn't distort to become flattened.  On the contrary, it only appears to an observer as if the cube had contracted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz-FitzGerald_contraction_hypothesis
2) Minkowski space is spacetime.  How does the addition of time as a fourth dimension support what you're saying?
3) I've heard other people (I think Tom) support their conjectures by saying that the FE works under a "different geometry."  So please explain exactly what about this geometry leads you to the conclusion that the earth is flat.

1) I checked the wikipedia.  It is correct in saying "physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer"  It does not "only appear to an observer"  It is a real physical phenomenon, which can be detected.  If you wish to debate this, I can find many other sources which confirm the reality.
2) Yes, I know.  It doesn't.  I was just anticipating the fact that you might find my curved space a little hard to swallow, so I was pointing out that it is not without precedent.
3) Non-euclidean geometry doesn't lead to a conclusion that the Earth is flat, it just shows that the RE straight light theory can be exactly equivalent to FE curved light (FECL) IF you pick a suitable geometry.  Sure, I have to use a more complex geometry than Euclidean, but in the end, Einstein showed that Euclidean doesn't even handle fast moving objects, let alone gravity: he went for a general differential geometry.  I've just picked one in which I define the Earth as flat just as Einstein arbitrarily defined straight lines (geodesics) as light paths.

First of all, take your own advice:

If you're just going to ignore everyone, this forum will get boring.

You responded to less than half of my post.

1) I checked the wikipedia.  It is correct in saying "physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer"  It does not "only appear to an observer"  It is a real physical phenomenon, which can be detected.  If you wish to debate this, I can find many other sources which confirm the reality.

Actually, it's more a matter of perspective and interpretation.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

3) Non-euclidean geometry doesn't lead to a conclusion that the Earth is flat, it just shows that the RE straight light theory can be exactly equivalent to FE curved light (FECL) IF you pick a suitable geometry.  Sure, I have to use a more complex geometry than Euclidean, but in the end, Einstein showed that Euclidean doesn't even handle fast moving objects, let alone gravity: he went for a general differential geometry.  I've just picked one in which I define the Earth as flat just as Einstein arbitrarily defined straight lines (geodesics) as light paths.

I won't ask you to elaborate on this any further, because I doubt it's going to go anywhere.

Instead, please respond to what I asked in my last post:

Quote

These phenomena have nothing to do with FE.  Sure, there are FE theorists who believe in a tiny, spotlight sun and the like, but a large hot sun 93 MegaMiles away, around which Venus orbits,  is quite consistent with other FE theories, such as the curved light theory.

I'm revisiting this quote because sokarul brought up a good point I can elaborate on.  The light rays coming from the sun into the atmosphere (if the sun is that far away) would essentially be parallel.  Thus almost all of the rays would be travelling vertically down (or close to it) and would bend the same exact way.  This makes the horizon illusion, night/day, and all the other phenomena you described impossible under this curved-light theory.