FE Problems

  • 102 Replies
  • 31962 Views
*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #30 on: December 16, 2007, 05:28:44 PM »
My brother saved these pictures in order to illustrate this point but didn't bother to use them so I get dibs.  ;D




Looking at the sun at all stages in the sky (thru the glass) it always appears to be the same size.

Your reply? Yeah. Thought so.  ;)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 05:30:50 PM by Gabe »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #31 on: December 16, 2007, 07:35:02 PM »
bumped for raw pwnage.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2007, 07:46:23 PM »
Sunglasses was an example not a tool for viewing the sun. The dark glass was the one I was making the argument with. Like I already said, dark glass allows us to see the edges of the sun definitely.

It's true that a dark glass will eliminate the stray arms of a glare and allow the glare to become more defined. I agree with you there on that. But I am not speaking of the starry effects of the glare. I am speaking of the glare itself.

The stray arms of a glare are not a mechanism of the atmosphere, but a phenomena of the human eye. When a high frequency of light is shone directly at the eye starry bands will appear to irradiate from the light source. We can confirm that the starry arms of a glare are not part of the atmosphere by moving the edge of our hand up near the eye and attempting to obscure the arms of a glare with the edge of the hand. You will find that to be impossible. The arms of a glare will overlap your hand - a prime indication that the arms of a glare originate within the eye.

The glare phenomenon consists of two parts; one part is the magnification of light through the atmosphere and the other is the starry bands which manifest upon the retina of the eye. While the starry bands can be eliminated through the use of a dark glass, the magnification of the light rays upon the atmosphere cannot. The magnification of the illuminating body is part of the atmosphere, not of the eye, and therefore cannot be seen through by dimming the brightness of a scene.

When a dark glass is used on the sun the stray arms upon the eye are eliminated and only the dimmed magnification of the sun's image upon the atmosphere remains. By using a dark glass we can eliminate the eye effect and get a well defined look at the glare - the magnification of the sun's light upon the atmosphere.

Just the same, if we put on a pair of sunglasses during a summer day we can eliminate the stray arms of a car's glare and see the well defined details of the glare's effect upon the atmosphere. The glare still exists when sunglasses are worn, the glare is just better defined and dimmed in intensity.

If it were true that sunglasses or a dark glass could eliminate the glare from a car's hood on a summer day, the glare would not be visible at all when sunglasses are worn. However, since the glare is still visible when sunglasses are worn, and since the only effect is a dimmed and better defined glare, we can therefore deduce that the sunglasses have only eliminated the star-effect of the glare which manifests upon the retina of the human eye.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2007, 08:22:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

GG-Xtreme

  • 119
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2007, 08:07:58 PM »
It's not a human eye, it's a camera, dickwad.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2007, 08:09:59 PM »
It's not a human eye, it's a camera, dickwad.

Cameras were built to mimic the light-capturing properties of the human eye.

?

GG-Xtreme

  • 119
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2007, 08:13:09 PM »
They are completely different when it comes to glare-related phenomena. For example, lens flares.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2007, 07:01:39 AM »
Oh, and Tom...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

tommo

  • 505
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #37 on: December 17, 2007, 07:03:47 AM »
hahah! i love them types of pictures..

Quote from: jack
I'm special.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #38 on: December 17, 2007, 10:01:19 AM »
How an object should look like as it recedes.



Notice how it never reaches the horizon, and how the speed is not constant.

you are so good with visualizations.  nice.

It's not mine.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #39 on: December 17, 2007, 12:36:33 PM »
They are completely different when it comes to glare-related phenomena. For example, lens flares.

What's your point? Cameras are also susceptible to seeing the long starry arms of a glare.

It's an illusion.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #40 on: December 17, 2007, 02:40:23 PM »
They are completely different when it comes to glare-related phenomena. For example, lens flares.

What's your point? Cameras are also susceptible to seeing the long starry arms of a glare.

It's an illusion.
Care to point out where the lines coming from the sun are? The glass lets us see the edge distinctly, something glare cannot fake. I can't believe you are suggesting that the overwhelming of the retina would cause the same optical pattern with a camera. Cameras are used to photograph sunspots. The exact shape can be determined quite easily.  ::)

So if cameras can fall for illusions, how do you know about it?
Let me guess: the Earth is flat therefore the sun must produce a glare making its shape only appear like the one in RE.
Sorry, try again.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 01:41:22 PM by Gabe »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

GG-Xtreme

  • 119
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #41 on: December 17, 2007, 03:21:52 PM »
They are completely different when it comes to glare-related phenomena. For example, lens flares.

What's your point? Cameras are also susceptible to seeing the long starry arms of a glare.

It's an illusion.

Summary: bullshit

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2008, 01:37:53 PM »
Oh wow. Found another one of my unanswered posts.  I'll BUMP it.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 01:41:49 PM by Gabe »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2008, 01:37:13 PM »



Looking at the sun at all stages in the sky (thru the glass) it always appears to be the same size.

BUMP.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Wakka Wakka

  • 1512
  • +0/-0
  • Beat The Hell Outta Spheres!
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2008, 02:38:00 PM »
So the sun never really "sets" in the FE model?  It just asymtops until it is not visible anymore?  Does this mean I could follow the sun's movements with a powerful enough telescope?  Also, I know its stupid, but wouldn't a smaller sun mean it would "burn out" faster?
Normally when I'm not sure I just cop a feel.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2008, 02:42:19 PM »
Quote
So the sun never really "sets" in the FE model?  It just asymtops until it is not visible anymore?


Yes.

Quote
Does this mean I could follow the sun's movements with a powerful enough telescope?

The sun is much further away than a half-sunken ship and recedes at over 1000 miles per hour. With a telescope it may possible to see sun for a split second just after it sets, but nothing more.

Quote
Also, I know its stupid, but wouldn't a smaller sun mean it would "burn out" faster?

That would depend on how atomically dense the sun is and how much fuel there is to burn.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2008, 07:49:47 PM »
??? Thanks for addressing my post Tom. [/sarcasm]
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #47 on: February 15, 2008, 07:01:44 PM »
Bumpē.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2008, 10:02:51 AM »
Bump3
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #49 on: February 20, 2008, 11:18:44 AM »
Tom, you claim the sun is a sphere. Yet if it is, your refraction idea doesn't work to create a spotlight. Unless it is a dented orange.

Question: How do the seasons work?
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

char70ger

  • 98
  • +0/-0
  • The flat earth is a globe!!!
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2008, 02:36:53 PM »
He's gonna tell you READ the FAQ.

?

Jim

  • 255
  • +0/-0
  • What year did Jesus think it was?
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2008, 05:34:30 PM »
The spotlight idea is immense.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2008, 08:52:35 AM »
He's gonna tell you READ the FAQ.
I know, but I proved the FAQ explanation was crap, did not work and if it did predicts observations we simply do not see, ages ago. All they did was lock the topic. Never tried to defend it, didn't try to fix it.
That was the day I realised that FES is nothing to do with debating FET. Not when an RE proponent points out such an obvious flaw.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Gabe

  • 485
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2008, 09:48:35 AM »
He's gonna tell you READ the FAQ.

Conspiracy Agent or me?
My question is original and not covered in the FAQ.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2008, 11:03:07 AM »
He's gonna tell you READ the FAQ.

Conspiracy Agent or me?
My question is original and not covered in the FAQ.
My question is covered in the FAQ, it's just covered with bullshit.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

veclock

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2008, 11:29:20 AM »
Tom, why is the whole sky blue and not just around the sun? Your "small and close" sun model have not the possibility to make the whole sky blue.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2008, 11:34:28 AM »
Tom, why is the whole sky blue and not just around the sun? Your "small and close" sun model have not the possibility to make the whole sky blue.
Atmospheric superscattering. The light bounces off the spotlight boundary, is scattered and makes the sky blue. Nah, I'm just kidding. I'm sure Tom will know. It knows all.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • +0/-0
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2008, 12:39:05 PM »
Why is the sky blue?
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • +0/-0
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2008, 12:49:15 PM »
Light is scattered by the air molecules, blue more than most.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

veclock

  • 63
  • +0/-0
Re: FE Problems
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2008, 01:05:55 PM »
Check this image to see what I'm talking about.