Sinking Ship experiment Results

Don't you fools know? Antartica is NOT a country! 

This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards. Thanks dyno.

Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true. It isn't proof of anything.

LOL!

Another victory for RE!

The Earth appears flat because the camera is close to the ground.

So let me sum this up.

Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...

1.  Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.

2.  Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.

3.  Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.

4.  It is a government conspiracy!

Did I miss any?

Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...

1.  Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.

Except we showed that the waves were no larger than 0.5 meters.

2.  Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.

No explanation as to why there is this special effect over seawater??!?

3.  Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.

Tom doesn't know whether to support this one or not.  It is a nice convenient explanation on one hand, but on the other, if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.

4.  It is a government conspiracy!

I doubt that Dyno is a government agent, but who knows, they might pay him to "lose" those pictures.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 09, 2008, 06:52:13 PM

Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...

1.  Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.

Except we showed that the waves were no larger than 0.5 meters.

Quote

2.  Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.

No explanation as to why there is this special effect over seawater??!?

Quote

3.  Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.

Tom doesn't know whether to support this one or not.  It is a nice convenient explanation on one hand, but on the other, if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.

Quote

4.  It is a government conspiracy!

I doubt that Dyno is a government agent, but who knows, they might pay him to "lose" those pictures.

Oh noes! If I go down I'm taking you all with me.

...if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.

God Forbid!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2008, 06:42:34 PM

The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.

But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus.  You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.

Wow, thats probably the best summary of FET I has seen yet. Good work mate! And I am being serious here (incase you thought I am bein sarcastic)!

EDIT: My bad, I mean its a good summary of Tom Bishop, not FET. I have actually read some good theories around here that are more plausible then RET.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on August 30, 2008, 01:18:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2008, 06:42:34 PM

The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.

But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus.  You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.

Wow, thats probably the best summary of FET I has seen yet. Good work mate! And I am being serious here (incase you thought I am bein sarcastic)!

Thank you.

In light of a recent post I saw stating FES was no longer supporting bendy light, how are these results now interpreted?

Light does NOT bend.  The only time is does bend is with gravity.  BUT in the FE perspective, there is no gravity, so yes light does NOT bend.

No FEr going to respond?
Given the abandonment of bendy light, don't these results kick Rowbowthams arse all over the place?

Im just going to say its ANOTHER win for the REers!  win win win!

I would like to hear a response from an FE'er without the "bendy light" idea.

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

and Dogplatter sees nothing wrong with man creating penguins

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

wat is the EA?
And light is not affected by magnetism...

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2009, 10:19:01 PM

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

wat is the EA?
And light is not affected by magnetism...

EA is the phenomenon you are referring to as bending light.  Try conducting a search, there are a few threads dedicated to it.

Quote

GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.

LOL? We can see more of the hull because we can see over the curvature of the earth.. It's as simple as that.

Making up theories that light bends upwards is a typical and poor attempt to try make your silly flat earth theory work.

This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards. Thanks dyno.

If light bent upwards then we would just see more water compared to the original image when going to a higher altitude.

The only way to explain this is to say that the light simply disappeared. It was cut out and the light remaining came together to reform the picture.

I took a second to make a quick picture show what I mean:



If the light bent upwards we would see the exact same image only it would look higher, like we were looking up a slope. What we actually see is the are between the bolded lines vanishing when you look at a lower altitude, and the full picture when looking at a higher altitude. I don't believe bending light properly explains what is observed, unless I am misunderstanding the theory.

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

i found this in the FAQ

UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.

you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2009, 10:19:01 PM

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

i found this in the FAQ

UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.

you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.

The FEW does not represent the Flat Earth Society.

So what is the Flat Earth Society scientific theory of choice? The one considered most plausible by the majority?

Considering what the "big" FE'ers believe, (Tom, Username, Ski)  I would say bendy light of some kind is accepted.

Quote from: Abysmal on June 06, 2009, 11:58:27 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2009, 10:19:01 PM

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

i found this in the FAQ

UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.

you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.

The FEW does not represent the Flat Earth Society.

Actually, I think that it does (at least as far as this site goes).  I'm sure that some members will have differing opinions on various elements of the model, but as near as I can tell the FEW (Flat Earth Wiki) is supposed to describe the "official" FE model.

Considering what the "big" FE'ers believe, (Tom, Username, Ski)  I would say bendy light of some kind is accepted.

But (as I recall) they all have different versions of bendy light.  Tom is proposing two different kinds of light (bendy celestial and non-bendy terrestrial) and Username favors Aetherific Edification.  I forget what Ski supports (EA, I think), but I don't think that he's been around much lately to discuss the matter.

Quote

GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.

This is evidence that you're ignorant.  We can see more of the ship's hull as we go higher because the higher vantage point allows us, or the camera for that matter, to see over the curve of the earth that's getting in our way at ground level.  The pictures that Dyno took didn't do anything for your theory, it actually proved it wrong.

You must be realy, realy stupid. LOL AT YOU, YOU STUPID RETARD.

I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

There's a pun in there somewhere...

dyno, when you post a picture, you need to tell the distance involved, there was no such thing in your message.

Is it 10 km? 15 km? Did you specify the curvature involved?

There is no need to resort to bending light; which is not an argument to be used in our discussions, with bending light you could accomplish lots of things, which might have alternative explanations.

Let me prove to you the Earth is flat, without bending light.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/



The roof top of the Sky Dome visible (well intended round earth supporters brought to our attention that the height of the Sky Dome is actually 90 meters, and not 86; at least 5 meters of the roof is visible, that would bring it back right to about 86, but we will use here a value of 90 meters).

Even with atmospheric reffraction (which is absent in this photograph) we might substract a few meters, there would still be about 50-55 meters remaining which cannot be explained on a round earth.

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

Here is the beach in St. Catharines:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
(already we can see the top of the CN Tower, due to the fact we are using a poor quality camera)

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg
(with a better camera, more details become available, confirming the theory described in Earth is not a Globe, WITHOUT resorting to bending light)

There is a difference of 60 meters between the accepted round earth measure of 150.5 meters (under which you could see nothing), and the visible portion of the top of the Sky Dome...



Note that I have used a 50 km distance (actually 52-53 km) and a 3 meter height for the photographer (actually 2).

Here is a panorama of the Toronto skyline:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg

Now another three photograph section, in which we see the theory written by Rowbotham, once again, confirmed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/ (visible roof top of the Sky Dome, 60 meters difference between the accepted value of 150.5 meters, and the height of 90 meters)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (better camera, better picture, with more details)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/

If we imagine Toronto as a gigantic ship, with the CN Tower as its masthead, we get a complete confirmation of the theory in:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm