Line of sight

The geometry of lunar eclipses has been proven around like 400-300 BC! You have to prove it false to make such a statement. You seem to be very good at math this shouldn't be hard  for you if you are right.

My primary focus at the moment with regard to FET is to come up with an algebraic representation of the path followed by a light ray that is being accelerated by the EA. Undoubtedly I shall attempt to look into the geometry of lunar eclipses at some point.

Quote from: duell on August 11, 2008, 02:14:07 AM

Hello,

I live in Denmark on the westcoast of Jutland. From here there are approximately 300 km to the east coast of England. How does FE explain that I cannot see England, not even if i utilize a strong telescope (attainable even by an avarage household) with which I can study the ring system on Saturn 1,321,416,800 km away?

Saturn is only that far away in the RE model. In the FE model, it would be no more than about 5000 km away.

I wounder why Newton didn't notice this. 

Quote from: Robosteve on August 11, 2008, 02:39:36 AM

Quote from: duell on August 11, 2008, 02:14:07 AM

Hello,

I live in Denmark on the westcoast of Jutland. From here there are approximately 300 km to the east coast of England. How does FE explain that I cannot see England, not even if i utilize a strong telescope (attainable even by an avarage household) with which I can study the ring system on Saturn 1,321,416,800 km away?

Saturn is only that far away in the RE model. In the FE model, it would be no more than about 5000 km away.

I wounder why Newton didn't notice this. 

Perhaps because it's difficult to judge distances of that magnitude simply by looking at faraway objects.

Yet you will fail to prove the ancient Greeks, modern scientists and the causal astronomer hobbyist wrong. Clearly, the government cannot hide what you can see with your own eyes and no one has proven the geometry wrong yet.

Quote from: sokarul on August 12, 2008, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 11, 2008, 02:39:36 AM

Quote from: duell on August 11, 2008, 02:14:07 AM

Hello,

I live in Denmark on the westcoast of Jutland. From here there are approximately 300 km to the east coast of England. How does FE explain that I cannot see England, not even if i utilize a strong telescope (attainable even by an avarage household) with which I can study the ring system on Saturn 1,321,416,800 km away?

Saturn is only that far away in the RE model. In the FE model, it would be no more than about 5000 km away.

I wounder why Newton didn't notice this. 

Perhaps because it's difficult to judge distances of that magnitude simply by looking at faraway objects.

You should tell that to his works. 

Sadly, the "lightspeed accelerating model" doesn't work due to the proven fact that Lightspeed is a constant (C) and that is what we base our entire world view on.. Now you're saying that RE is wrong, but are you also saying that Einstein was wrong with his theory of relativety?

Quote from: FELUNATIC on August 12, 2008, 02:58:12 AM

RE however you can prove and you can't disprove.

Prove it, then.

It's *your* theory, *you* prove it - State something that your EM accelerator would do that does *not* have the same effect that would be produced by the earth being round.

Of course we can't *disprove* the theory that physics includes a massive number of overly complicated field effects that, by odd coincidence, give the exact same subjective results as a simpler physics theory with only four forces all with well understood measurable effects, but if you posit such a theory, it's up to you to design a test that can distinguish it from the simple and concise theory.

Occam is killing kittens here - get a move on!

Quote from: Robosteve on August 12, 2008, 03:13:07 AM

Quote from: FELUNATIC on August 12, 2008, 02:58:12 AM

RE however you can prove and you can't disprove.

Prove it, then.

It's *your* theory, *you* prove it - State something that your EM accelerator would do that does *not* have the same effect that would be produced by the earth being round.

Of course we can't *disprove* the theory that physics includes a massive number of overly complicated field effects that, by odd coincidence, give the exact same subjective results as a simpler physics theory with only four forces all with well understood measurable effects, but if you posit such a theory, it's up to you to design a test that can distinguish it from the simple and concise theory.

Occam is killing kittens here - get a move on!

No. FELUNATIC claimed it was possible to prove RET, so I asked him to prove it. He has not yet done so.

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 04:55:20 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 12, 2008, 03:13:07 AM

Quote from: FELUNATIC on August 12, 2008, 02:58:12 AM

RE however you can prove and you can't disprove.

Prove it, then.

It's *your* theory, *you* prove it - State something that your EM accelerator would do that does *not* have the same effect that would be produced by the earth being round.

Of course we can't *disprove* the theory that physics includes a massive number of overly complicated field effects that, by odd coincidence, give the exact same subjective results as a simpler physics theory with only four forces all with well understood measurable effects, but if you posit such a theory, it's up to you to design a test that can distinguish it from the simple and concise theory.

Occam is killing kittens here - get a move on!

No. FELUNATIC claimed it was possible to prove RET, so I asked him to prove it. He has not yet done so.

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely. You have a more interesting theory, you get to post a test that disproves it.

The Statement "I have a theory that explains why the earth *looks* rounded despite having no test that allows me to distinguish it from an earth that *is* rounded is like intelligent design, without being as smart"

Come up with a test. Occom is in UR house killin' UR kittens man - won't someone please think of the kittens!

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.

Fascinating.  Like what?

look robo, how can one prove to you the earth is round when you label EVERYTHING a conspiracy or some delusion? you can't

You're willingfull ignorant like all of the FE-ers


If someone gave a FE-er the money for a space shuttle ride and they saw it themself. Then they would say the windows are televisions are something like that.


They're so obsessed with a certain idea that they'll never accept it.



FE-ers (according to the FAQ) have no rreason to think it's a conspiracy. Although you fly planes based on RE, you use GPS (which is only possible with high altitude object from which you can see if the earth is round or not). And ALL scientist base everything on RE (if they  neeed it).

When 100k+++ people told you they witnessed an explosion and their were video's of it and you yourself can see the consequences of it. Will you deny it? no
Then why do you deny RE?

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:29:30 PM

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.

Fascinating.  Like what?

Easiest one? Stick a pole in the ground on a date when it leave no shadow at noon. Then stick a pole in the ground 500 miles away. Measure the shadow left by that pole on that date.

The rest is easy math. And, well, hiring camel drivers to pace out the 500 miles, but it worked for Eratosthenes.

Plus you can see different constellations in the sky depending on your latitude, longitude, and the time.

Plus you can actually see satellites overhead at night. With a low powered telescope, you can actually - y'know, *SEE* them.

Plus the field artillery has to take into account the curvature of the earths surface in order to hit it's targets.

Plus you can actually measure the curvature of the earth when measuring peak to peak heights on mountains.

Plus the distance of the horizon would be determined only by atmospheric density in a flat earth - and the horizon would always seem to be at exactly eye level no matter what your altitude - see level or mountain top (Do the thought experiment on this one).

Plus if you went 'around the world' on a flat earth you would neither lose nor gain a day.

Also, by extension, Jet Lag would be an impossibility.

Atomic Clocks on a flat earth would *not* show any difference in time measurement because of altitude - but do.

CD

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 08:30:39 PM

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:29:30 PM

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.

Fascinating.  Like what?

Easiest one? Stick a pole in the ground on a date when it leave no shadow at noon. Then stick a pole in the ground 500 miles away. Measure the shadow left by that pole on that date.

The rest is easy math. And, well, hiring camel drivers to pace out the 500 miles, but it worked for Eratosthenes.

Eratosthenes didn't prove that the earth was round.  He merely calculated the circumference of the earth, assuming it to be round.

Plus you can see different constellations in the sky depending on your latitude, longitude, and the time.

No contradiction with FET here.

Plus you can actually see satellites overhead at night. With a low powered telescope, you can actually - y'know, *SEE* them.

You're seeing something.  We just dispute that what you're seeing is orbiting the earth, because that is impossible.

Plus the field artillery has to take into account the curvature of the earths surface in order to hit it's targets.

I'm not the least convinced of this.

Plus you can actually measure the curvature of the earth when measuring peak to peak heights on mountains.

You can quite easily verify the flatness of the surface by performing Rowbotham's experiments.

Plus the distance of the horizon would be determined only by atmospheric density in a flat earth - and the horizon would always seem to be at exactly eye level no matter what your altitude - see level or mountain top (Do the thought experiment on this one).

Ooh, a thought experiment.  That proves everything!

Plus if you went 'around the world' on a flat earth you would neither lose nor gain a day.

Wrong.  FE has timezones too.

Also, by extension, Jet Lag would be an impossibility.

See above.

Atomic Clocks on a flat earth would *not* show any difference in time measurement because of altitude - but do.

Ooh, you finally bring something up related to physics (I thought there were several ways to prove a round earth using physics?).  I don't necessarily agree with the reliability of these experiments.

Eratosthenes interpreted his data on his assumption that the earth was round.  The data might be evidence that the angle of the sun is different in different places.  This also agrees with Flat Earth Theory.

Roundy, you beat me to it. 

Eratosthenes interpreted his data on his assumption that the earth was round.  The data might be evidence that the angle of the sun is different in different places.  This also agrees with Flat Earth Theory.

Roundy, you beat me to it. 

Ah, no, not at a range of 3000 miles it doesn't.  Just eyeballing it, the angles don't even come close.

CD

The angles don't come close to what?

Eratosthenes made a number of assumptions in his shadow experiment which calculates the distance to the sun. He assumed that the sun was very far away and he assumed that the earth was a sphere.

The Flat Earth Society actively uses Eratosthenes' experiments to explain features of the FE model. Here's a link which explains the idea. The explanation is at the very bottom. Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section. You will find that we can use Eratosthenes' data, in conjunction with the assumption of a Flat Earth, to confirm that the sun is very near to the earth. We can calculate an exact figure for the sun's distance, showing that it is very close to the earth.

Eratosthenes' experiment can both triangulate the sun to be 93 million miles away or mere thousands of miles away depending on the earth model we assume.

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:54:43 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 12, 2008, 08:30:39 PM

Quote from: CognitiveDissonance001 on August 12, 2008, 08:29:30 PM

Sorry no, simple physics has numerous tests to verify a rounded earth quite nicely.

Fascinating.  Like what?

Easiest one? Stick a pole in the ground on a date when it leave no shadow at noon. Then stick a pole in the ground 500 miles away. Measure the shadow left by that pole on that date.

The rest is easy math. And, well, hiring camel drivers to pace out the 500 miles, but it worked for Eratosthenes.

Eratosthenes didn't prove that the earth was round.  He merely calculated the circumference of the earth, assuming it to be round.

Quote

Plus you can see different constellations in the sky depending on your latitude, longitude, and the time.

No contradiction with FET here.

Quote

Plus you can actually see satellites overhead at night. With a low powered telescope, you can actually - y'know, *SEE* them.

You're seeing something.  We just dispute that what you're seeing is orbiting the earth, because that is impossible.

Quote

Plus the field artillery has to take into account the curvature of the earths surface in order to hit it's targets.

I'm not the least convinced of this.

Quote

Plus you can actually measure the curvature of the earth when measuring peak to peak heights on mountains.

You can quite easily verify the flatness of the surface by performing Rowbotham's experiments.

Quote

Plus the distance of the horizon would be determined only by atmospheric density in a flat earth - and the horizon would always seem to be at exactly eye level no matter what your altitude - see level or mountain top (Do the thought experiment on this one).

Ooh, a thought experiment.  That proves everything!

Quote

Plus if you went 'around the world' on a flat earth you would neither lose nor gain a day.

Wrong.  FE has timezones too.

Quote

Also, by extension, Jet Lag would be an impossibility.

See above.

Quote

Atomic Clocks on a flat earth would *not* show any difference in time measurement because of altitude - but do.

Ooh, you finally bring something up related to physics (I thought there were several ways to prove a round earth using physics?).  I don't necessarily agree with the reliability of these experiments.

All these are explained far more simply by a spherical earth. You can 'explain' it only by invoking mysterious forces that leave no other sign than the particular phenomena you need explained, bending light in particular ways, having a mysterious linear acceleration without fuel, placing the sun on a path not explainable by gravity, ignoring what seems to me to be a fairly obvious thought experiment, ignoring the training given to artillery officers, and in general ignoring the simple theory in favor of a universe built by an incompetent deity that uses duct tape to hold the heavens together.

That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.

I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.

CD

Then why do you deny RE?

Do I?

All these are explained far more simply by a spherical earth. You can 'explain' it only by invoking mysterious forces that leave no other sign than the particular phenomena you need explained, bending light in particular ways, having a mysterious linear acceleration without fuel, placing the sun on a path not explainable by gravity, ignoring what seems to me to be a fairly obvious thought experiment, ignoring the training given to artillery officers, and in general ignoring the simple theory in favor of a universe built by an incompetent deity that uses duct tape to hold the heavens together.

That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.

I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns.

CD

It's all about how you interpret the data.  The only reason why RE looks like the better theory right now is that it has been built in as an assumption with all of our major scientific discoveries for centuries, it is something ingrained in everybody's mind from a very young age (much like religion), and it's assumed by some that so-called "pictures from space" somehow prove that the earth is round.  However, it's impossible for some to ignore the evidence that the earth is flat.  That's what this website is all about: breaking free of the accepted dogma and actually considering something that makes sense for a change.

I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns either. 

RtT

That's ah - not an explanation. If your theory requires more undetectable buy highly important forces working behind the scenes that a season of 'Lost' - then the onus is upon you to prove those force exist.

Here an experiment we could perform to prove that light bends upwards:

Say we have a powerful laser pointer which can shine a distance of five miles. Two observers are at a lake which is five miles across.

On opposite sides of a five mile long lake one observer sets his laser pointer exactly 6 inches above the surface of the water and the other observer sets a large white poster board on the opposite side of the lake at the water's level. If photons curve upwards then the laser dot on the other side of the lake should appear higher than 6 inches above the surface of the water.

Here an experiment we could perform to prove that light bends upwards:

Say we have a powerful laser pointer which can shine a distance of two miles. Two observers are at a lake which is two miles across.

On opposite sides of a mile long lake one observer sets his laser pointer exactly 6 inches above the surface of the water and the other observer sets a large white poster board on the other side of the lake at the water's level. If light curves upwards then the laser dot on the other side of the lake should appear higher than 6 inches above the surface of the water.

Of course, the same effect would be observed if it were the Earth curving downwards under the laser.

Of course, the same effect would be observed if it were the Earth curving downwards under the laser.

I don't see any reason to assume that the entire geography and form of the earth changes between the experimenters. Observer number two can clearly see that the photons are higher than six inches on his end.

Quote

Of course, the same effect would be observed if it were the Earth curving downwards under the laser.

Why should we assume that the entire geography and form of the earth has changed when observer two can clearly see that the laser dot on his side is higher?

what is the temperature when the experiment is conducted?

Quote

Of course, the same effect would be observed if it were the Earth curving downwards under the laser.

I don't see any reason to assume that the entire geography and form of the earth changes between the experimenters. Observer number two can clearly see that the photons are higher than six inches on his end.

I'm just pointing out that the effect would be equivalent, in much the same way that gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable. So the experiment would prove nothing.

what is the temperature when the experiment is conducted?

The experiment was conducted in a vacuum.

Quote

what is the temperature when the experiment is conducted?

The experiment was conducted in a vacuum.

then why would the light bend?

Whats the temperature of the vacuum?  I keed, I keed....calm down Ski, Engy.  Its only a joke.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2008, 10:52:54 PM

Quote

Of course, the same effect would be observed if it were the Earth curving downwards under the laser.

I don't see any reason to assume that the entire geography and form of the earth changes between the experimenters. Observer number two can clearly see that the photons are higher than six inches on his end.

I'm just pointing out that the effect would be equivalent, in much the same way that gravitation and acceleration are indistinguishable. So the experiment would prove nothing.

True.

Very true.  Awaiting response before I declare another RE victory.