Reasons for believing in FE?

  • 225 Replies
  • 30774 Views
*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #210 on: November 04, 2008, 10:25:23 AM »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39349
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #211 on: November 04, 2008, 10:35:15 AM »
I have 100 proofs.

Your 100 proofs are wrong.
Then disprove them ::)

Why don't you demonstrate that any of them are correct?  Again, they are not my proofs and I have yet to see any convincing evidence they they are correct.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #212 on: November 04, 2008, 10:40:27 AM »
I have 100 proofs.

Your 100 proofs are wrong.
Then disprove them ::)

First off, those are NOT proofs.  Second, as I said before, I am not going to jump through hoops trying to disprove everything that is said on this forum or what was written by one guy who didn't even prove what he is stating as proof.

when somebody says "Light bends prove that it doesn't", it is NOT proof that light bends!  You saying that those 100 statements are proof until we waste our time to disprove them all doesn't make them proof.  You have to show how it is true first.

What out of those 100 "proofs" have you, or anybody from FE tested yourself?  Lets start there.  Bring your results.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 10:42:23 AM by ragnarr »

Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #213 on: November 04, 2008, 01:20:42 PM »
And how do you determine this mass?

Its all circular reasoning with you guys....

A falling apple (of known mass) enables us to calculate the earths mass.

Using the earths mass enables us to calculate the orbit characteristics of a satellite. If the earths mass is wrong then there will be an error factor between the calculated oribit and the observed orbit.

The earths orbit around the sun enables us to calculate the suns mass.

Using the suns mass enables us to calculate the orbit characteristics of its satellites (ie mercury, venus, mars etc). If the suns mass is wrong then there will be an error factor between the calculated oribit and the observed orbit of said satellite.

Ad infinitum.

Technically, you need to know the distance from the Earth to the Sun before you could calculate the Sun's mass based on the period of the Earth's orbit.

If you use the gravitational formula to determine a mass and distance to the Sun with only regards to the Earth, then you have a sliding "range" of values that could work.  A m/d ratio (we will use 1 solar mass / 1 ua) where we *could* be closer to a less massive sun, or farther from a heavier sun.  This in itself does not give much support for the formula.

What does, is that all the orbits of all the other planets also work perfectly, which is only possible because that formula actually reflects nature in a RO solar system

What also helps support it, is when we do use the calculated mass of the sun and calculated AU (not just a ratio) we get a fully working model that can be rendered in a computer simulation, which can also display every visible astronomical observation perfectly even from the perspective of a person standing on the Earth in any season.  The math is too tight to have any likelihood of it just "happening by coincidence to work, predict, and model" everything we see.


And regarding the "Its all circular reasoning with you guys...."[1] comment:  That would be true if we only were only testing the formula on a single orbit, but it works for all orbits, and even predicatively explains new orbits that we discover (moons we did not detect until later, etc).

Footnotes:
[1] We may need a new word in the English language defined as "Irony, but to a much later degree than the word irony can convey" (Feirony anyone, or does that fall flat?)

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #214 on: November 04, 2008, 03:29:20 PM »
If you accept the law of universal gravitation to work then how come doesn't light bend. You can calculate mass by E=MC^2


its all circular reasoning....

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #215 on: November 04, 2008, 03:46:06 PM »
I've no idea what you're babbling about now.

Shoo little troll. It's sunrise soon.
Telling people to go away isn't being constructive.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #216 on: November 04, 2008, 04:47:15 PM »
If you accept the law of universal gravitation to work then how come doesn't light bend. You can calculate mass by E=MC^2


its all circular reasoning....

Wow, I'm not even going to go into how badly worded that sentence is.  "How come doesn't light bend" WTF!!!  Also the Universal Law of Gravitation was Newton.  E=MC^2 is Einstein.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #217 on: November 04, 2008, 05:04:37 PM »
Yes but physicists routinely substitute equations into other equations.

Why doesn't light bend if light has a mass (einstien formula) and the law of universal gravitation says objects with mass are attracted to each other?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39349
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #218 on: November 04, 2008, 05:07:35 PM »
If you accept the law of universal gravitation to work then how come doesn't light bend. You can calculate mass by E=MC^2

Actually, gravitation does bend light.  Google "gravitational lensing".  You will find that it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light, however.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #219 on: November 04, 2008, 10:16:18 PM »
You will find that it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light, however.

Small gravitational fields have no effect on photons? Would you care to provide a source for this?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17529
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #220 on: November 04, 2008, 10:25:27 PM »
Actually, gravitation does bend light.  Google "gravitational lensing".  You will find that it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light, however.

Who has tested how big of a gravitational field it takes to bend light?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #221 on: November 05, 2008, 04:23:07 AM »
Actually, gravitation does bend light.  Google "gravitational lensing".  You will find that it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light, however.

Who has tested how big of a gravitational field it takes to bend light?

Einstein.

Also, I think he meant it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light significantly.  Even the earths gravitational field has an effect on light.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39349
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #222 on: November 05, 2008, 05:42:34 AM »
You will find that it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light, however.

Small gravitational fields have no effect on photons? Would you care to provide a source for this?

Small gravitational fields do indeed have a small effect on photons.  But not enough to account for your bendy light hypothesis.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #223 on: November 05, 2008, 07:15:39 AM »
You will find that it takes a rather large gravitational field to bend light, however.
Small gravitational fields do indeed have a small effect on photons.

Stop contradicting yourself, it makes RET lose credibility.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #224 on: November 05, 2008, 08:34:41 AM »
I have 100 proofs.

Your 100 proofs are wrong.
Then disprove them ::)

First off, those are NOT proofs.  Second, as I said before, I am not going to jump through hoops trying to disprove everything that is said on this forum or what was written by one guy who didn't even prove what he is stating as proof.

when somebody says "Light bends prove that it doesn't", it is NOT proof that light bends!  You saying that those 100 statements are proof until we waste our time to disprove them all doesn't make them proof.  You have to show how it is true first.

What out of those 100 "proofs" have you, or anybody from FE tested yourself?  Lets start there.  Bring your results.

Anybody care to address this?  I want to know if any of these "proofs" have been tested.

Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« Reply #225 on: November 08, 2008, 04:25:00 AM »
Quote
If you accept the law of universal gravitation to work then how come doesn't light bend. You can calculate mass by E=MC^2


its all circular reasoning....
Actually it does bend light and this has been measured for our Sun.

During an Eclipse, we can see stars where then light passes close to the Sun, We can measure the angle between that star and another star whose light does not pass close to the sun at that time. Later, we can look again at those pairs of stars and measure the angle between them again.

If the angle has change between the two measurements, then we can say that indeed the light form the star has bent.

We can then compare the amount that the light was bent by to the predictions of various theories (eg: That gravity bent the light, that it was refraction by an "Atmosphere" around the Sun, etc). The theory (or combination of theories) that give the most correct predictions will be the ones that are most likely to be correct.

This measurements have been done and the result matched the prediction by Einstein's Gravity.

Interestingly, even under Newtonian Gravity, it predicts that light should be bent by gravity, but the amount that the light is bent by is different to what is predicted by Einstein's Gravity. As the results of the measurement were different to the prediction by Newton's Gravity and were correctly predicted by Einstein's Gravity, then we can say that Einstein's Gravity is more correct than Newton's Gravity.

Under Einstein's Gravity, light is not "actually" bent or curved. What occurs is that light always travels in a type of Straight line called a Geodesic.

A Geodesic is a straight line in a type of geometry called Non-Euclidean geometry. Euclid was an ancient Greek mathematician that gave us a lot of our maths for geometry. However, the maths that Euclid gave us only apply if the surface we are doing the maths on is flat, like a piece of paper.

Euclid's formulas fail if the surface is curved (like a ball, or even just a hill). Because of this later mathematicians made changes to Euclid's formulas so that they took into account the shape of the surface that you are working on. This new maths is called Non-Euclidean geometry.

Now, because of the differences between Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry the equivalent structures in Euclidean geometry were given different names in Non-Euclidean if the formulas that govern them where changed so that they worked in non flat spaces.

One of these was the "Straight Line". In Euclidean geometry a Straight line is defined as: The shortest path between two points. In Non-Euclidean Geometry, the "Geodesic" has the exact same definition (and hence why it is a type of straight line). However, because in Non-Euclidean geometry the surface is not flat, it means that a Geodesic, from certain angles will appear as curved where as from others, it will still appear as straight.

Specifically, the geodesic line will appear as straight when viewed from he line itself. This is actually very important to understanding Einstein's gravity.

Now, light under Einstein's gravity will follow a geodesic. That is it will take the shortest path between two points. Now from the perspective (frame of reference) of the Light, the path it takes is perfectly straight, however, from a perspective (frame of reference) that is not the same as the light (say an Astronomer on Earth), it will appear as if the light curved or bent.

Now the really cool thing about all this is that you can map the geodesics and this will give you the actual shape of the surface even to the point of being able to determine how many dimensions the surface is curved in.

For light around gravitating abject, this shape of the "surface" is a 4 dimensional curve (hence why in relativity they talk about space-time being curved).

Now this also has implications for the difference between a Flat Earth and Round Earth. Non-Euclidean Geometry, if the underlying surface is flat, is identical to Euclidean geometry, so you can trace the Geodesic on a Flat Earth and trace the Geodesics for a Round Earth. You can then check these against actual measurements made on the ground to determine if the Surface of the Earth is flat like on a disk, or curved like on a ball. And you can go out and walk the lines, this avoids any chance that Bendy light can effect the results.

When you do this, the results of these direct geodesic measurement are that the Geodesics that exist for the Surface of the Earth describe a Sphere.

So, in response to the thread, the reason I don't believe in a flat Earth is because Mathematics and Geometry state that the Earth has to be a Sphere (well specifically a spheroid, that is an object that is almost, but not exactly, a perfect sphere).
Everyday household experimentation.