FE believers, take a look at that picture

Quote from: EllisGT on January 02, 2009, 07:50:31 PM

IT IS INADMISSIBLE PHOTO EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW THE SHIP IS PARTIALLY HIDDEN

Fixed.

Why are all pictures inadmissible evidence ? If you think that way, then what you see from your own eyes are also inadmissible evidence. Thus, looking out the window is inadmissible to claim the Earth is flat.

If we don't see the bottom of the ship, then there is an explanation (curve Earth seems the ONLY reason).

If you don't want to face the truth, it is your choice. I will then consider this a win for a RE and I won't debate anymore.

You cannot deny what we see from these picture.

I think as tom pointed out before, its bendy light obviously...

Because light bends upwards for no reason.

I think as tom pointed out before, its bendy light obviously...

Because light bends upwards for no reason.

The light probably bends up because FE said it. Otherwise, there is no logical explanation why the light would bend up, thus the curve of the Earth would be the only explanation why we don't see the bottom of the ship.

By the way, there is actually no experiments that prooves the light is bending for no reason. It bends because of gravity... so why would the light bend upwards? Have you ever talked to PhD Physicists?

Quote from: EllisGT on January 02, 2009, 07:50:31 PM

IT IS INADMISSIBLE PHOTO EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW THE SHIP IS PARTIALLY HIDDEN

Fixed.

Why, are you now claiming that the photo was faked?

I can go to the coast and see this exact same effect myself, so there would be no need to fake it. Also, Rowbotham even said that this effect would occur (the disappearing over the horizon effect) so if this effect occurs, why would one need to fake the photo?

If the photo is therefore real, then the photo can be accepted as evidence.

Then by examining the photo we can determine which is true FE or RE.

When we did this, RET came out as true and FET failed. It was only then that this claim of being inadmissible (for no reason given by FE - I only speculated that it could be because it was faked and then showed why it would be pointless to do so) surfaced. Until it was shown that the photo disagreed with FET it was accepted by FEers.

FEers have been asking us REers to present evidence, including photographic evidence to sup[port our claims. We did this, it was initially accepted and then when it disagreed with them, the FEers rejected it. This occurs continuously on this site. There is a very definite patter here. In psychological terms it is called: Denial, and is experienced by people who feel a need to reject reality for some reason (usually because their delusion is being challenged).

Quote from: EllisGT on January 02, 2009, 07:50:31 PM

IT IS INADMISSIBLE PHOTO EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW THE SHIP IS PARTIALLY HIDDEN

Fixed.

The point of the fix above is now bolded for your convenience. I simply added 'inadmissible' to be more accurate, though I personally believe the photo to be legitimate.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 02, 2009, 07:54:24 PM

Quote from: EllisGT on January 02, 2009, 07:50:31 PM

IT IS INADMISSIBLE PHOTO EVIDENCE SHOWING HOW THE SHIP IS PARTIALLY HIDDEN

Fixed.

The point of the fix above is now bolded for your convenience. I simply added 'inadmissible' to be more accurate, though I personally believe the photo to be legitimate.

So if you think the photo is real, and that it shows the ship as partially hidden, why do you think that it is not admissible as evidence that the ship is partially hidden? 

I really just don't get how you reached that conclusion.

Because we can't be sure if the photo has been tampered with or not.  It isn't evidence because it isn't rock solid.

Because we can't be sure if the photo has been tampered with or not.  It isn't evidence because it isn't rock solid.

Well, if you think the photo is tampered with, go down to your local port and take a photo yourself of a sip in the same situation. You will find that your photo and this one will show the same effect, thus this photo has had no reason to be tampered with as one can get this exact same effect without tampering.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 03, 2009, 05:38:02 PM

Because we can't be sure if the photo has been tampered with or not.  It isn't evidence because it isn't rock solid.

Well, if you think the photo is tampered with, go down to your local port and take a photo yourself of a sip in the same situation. You will find that your photo and this one will show the same effect, thus this photo has had no reason to be tampered with as one can get this exact same effect without tampering.

Still, the reason I'm seeing that could be for any number of reasons, such as bendy light or Rowbotham's Perspective Laws.  It isn't proof of Round Earth.

Quote from: Edtharan on January 03, 2009, 05:39:41 PM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on January 03, 2009, 05:38:02 PM

Because we can't be sure if the photo has been tampered with or not.  It isn't evidence because it isn't rock solid.

Well, if you think the photo is tampered with, go down to your local port and take a photo yourself of a sip in the same situation. You will find that your photo and this one will show the same effect, thus this photo has had no reason to be tampered with as one can get this exact same effect without tampering.

Still, the reason I'm seeing that could be for any number of reasons, such as bendy light or Rowbotham's Perspective Laws.  It isn't proof of Round Earth.

The perspective laws are easily proven false as perspective could never make something sink from above the line of perspective to below it, as the perspective laws sate that it is a reduction of distance to the vanishing point, not movement across it.

So the perspective laws are out as an explanation.

And I do agree that this photo, taken in isolation, does not disprove bendy light (that occurs elsewhere). However, we can't just look at one piece of evidence, we have to look at all evidence (and demonstrate why a piece of evidence is not admissible) and concentrate on the evidence that shows a difference between any claims.

So although it doesn't prove RET it does disprove many FET models. And because they are disproven now, any time they are brought up again, we can point to this thread and say that even the FEers have agreed that this photo disproves those models.

The perspective laws are easily proven false as perspective could never make something sink from above the line of perspective to below it, as the perspective laws state that it is a reduction of distance to the vanishing point, not movement across it.

This is only a conclusion. Where's the rest?
Are you citing perspective as you learned it out of an art book, or a classroom?

And I do agree that this photo, taken in isolation, does not disprove bendy light (that occurs elsewhere). However, we can't just look at one piece of evidence, we have to look at all evidence (and demonstrate why a piece of evidence is not admissible) and concentrate on the evidence that shows a difference between any claims.

What evidence is there against bendy light that you haven't shown us?

Quote from: Edtharan on January 03, 2009, 05:51:32 PM

The perspective laws are easily proven false as perspective could never make something sink from above the line of perspective to below it, as the perspective laws state that it is a reduction of distance to the vanishing point, not movement across it.

This is only a conclusion. Where's the rest?
Are you citing perspective as you learned it out of an art book, or a classroom?

No, perspective as I ahve observed it. I have never observed an object that is above the vanishing point go below the vanishing point, without the object actually physically moving that way. Do you have any evidence that this does occur?

Quote

And I do agree that this photo, taken in isolation, does not disprove bendy light (that occurs elsewhere). However, we can't just look at one piece of evidence, we have to look at all evidence (and demonstrate why a piece of evidence is not admissible) and concentrate on the evidence that shows a difference between any claims.

What evidence is there against bendy light that you haven't shown us?

The Mirror experiment:

Using a light table (one used for experiments in optics and are confirmed to be flat through non optical means so bendy light does not effect its shape), set up 2 mirrors so that they are perpendicular to the table surface and parallel to each other (so that they reflect any light back and forth).

Then using a laser raised to half the mirror's height shine it so that the laser beam reflects back and forth as many times as you can get it to (a few thousand time should be easy).

If the mirrors are 10m apart, and if you get the light to reflect 1,000 times, then this will be around 10km of beam length. As this distance would put a normal laser beam over the horizon, then we should see a definite bending of the light if bendy light really does exist.

So if the laser beam is higher or lower than the starting point, then bendy light does exist.

However, there are laser experiments that do this all the time, with greater distances between the mirrors and more reflections: And they don't get any evidence of bendy light.

Hence, there is no evidence for bendy light and evidence against bendy light.

You are assuming that bendy light would bend like that.  Let me note that Bendy Light is a theory in the weakest sense.  Experiments cannot be done on it because we still haven't studied it yet.

Plus, it's complete bullshit.

No, perspective as I have observed it. I have never observed an object that is above the vanishing point go below the vanishing point, without the object actually physically moving that way. Do you have any evidence that this does occur?

I must not understand your post. Can you elaborate?

Quote from: Edtharan on January 03, 2009, 06:20:25 PM

No, perspective as I have observed it. I have never observed an object that is above the vanishing point go below the vanishing point, without the object actually physically moving that way. Do you have any evidence that this does occur?

I must not understand your post. Can you elaborate?

Well according to perspective effect, if you double the distance between the object and the observer, the apparent size halves. I ahve directly confirmed this, and it is as easy as getting a ruler and an open space (I used my lounge room for one such test so the space needed is not large).

Now the important thing is that the apparent size halves. This is that the distance between the top and bottom (or sides) gets halved. The top shrinks an equal amount as the bottom. For this to happen they must both move in towards the vanishing point.

As what is below the vanishing point is moving up and what is above the vanishing point is moving down, then as soon as something "were" to move past the vanishing point, then it would be moving upwards.

This means that you categorically can not get the effect of the bottom half of an object "disappearing" over the horizon like that.

Also, this does not only occur with the up/down direction, but also with the side to side direction as well (to test this turn your head sideways so that the horizon is now vertical)l. So if the ship were to disappear like that over the horizon, then we should get a similar "horizon effect" where by half the ship disappears in the vertical direction as well as the horizontal direction.

Perspective can not account for that photo.

So you have come to this conclusion based on close objects, and applied it to far away objects?

So you have come to this conclusion based on close objects, and applied it to far away objects?

No that was only one example where you would not have to go out and do it.

On a trip to central Australia, there are sections of Road that do not turn and appear to go over the horizon. You can get a really good perspective effect there and can check that an object really does behave the way I said.

Also, it is simple geometry. If you double the distance between two objects, then according to geometry the angle halves. Also, it can be show that an object on one side of the vanishing point will never cross the centre line.

So I have mathematics, geometry and direct observation that disproves you. So unless you can prove that 1 + 1 does not equal 2, then you are just going to have to accept that perspective can not explain that photo (as direct observation or photos are clearly not acceptable evidence for you, we will have to rely on maths, it is the fact that maths and observation match that give my position more strength).

Well first off, the fact that the roads curve off at the horizon pretty much destroys your claim that this effect works at long distances.

Well first off, the fact that the roads curve off at the horizon pretty much destroys your claim that this effect works at long distances.

No. I did not say that I look that objects as they went over the horizon. I just said that I had large distances with which to observe the way an object changes its size with distance. You are strawmanning.

If you are going to make stuff up about what I say, why do I say anything? I should just let you get on with your fantasy as nothing I am saying actually seem to be heard.

Singularity asked if I took only nearby observations and applied it to far away object. I gave an example where I didn't do that, and still got the same conclusions as the nearby objects.

Further more I actually provided mathematical evidence of my claims. You can do the mats yourself. So even if you ignore the direct observation evidence I provided, you still can not explain the photo with perspective. Not at all. You are supplying a strawman argument in an attempt to create a red herring distraction.

Give it up you are completely transparent.

But I'll entertain you for now. Let us assume that my observations can not be included.

Using only the maths of geometry, show me that as you increase the distance between an observer and an object, that the bottom half disappears like it would over the horizon.

I'll post my example to show it can't:


The observer is at point G.

The two lines F and E are the same height and the distance between them and the observer are exactly double for the line E as compared to F.

You will also note that the diagonal red line C is at exactly half the angle of the red line D.

This means that an observer at G will see the line E as half the height as the line F.

But you will also note that this does not "push" the line below the horizontal line (ie the line that connects the observer with the Horizon).

So mathematically you can not have the perspective effect cause the effect in the photo.

As perspective can't and bendy light has been disprove. FET has no explanation as to the photo.

First off, you did not get the same conclusions.  Did or didn't the road disappear over the horizon?

First off, you did not get the same conclusions.  Did or didn't the road disappear over the horizon?

I was not looking at the exact horizon, but in the behaviour of objects as they got further or closer to you.

If the horizon was of importance to this experiment, then the only conclusion I would be able to reach is that suddenly at a certain distance all the laws of perspective change as the effect that you are claiming causes the horizon does not occur until then. So why, when this known pattern of geometry that describes the effects of perspective, suddenly get throw out the window when things reach a certain distance, and why does it only apply to the horizontal line, and why does it not occur on the horizontal line (but instead, the vertical line) if you turn your head sideways?

Nothing that you have presented explains these effects. Nothing. As there is no explanation of these effects for the horizon being presented by any FEer to date that has stood up to even the least bit of investigation and RET does explain them without exception, then I will accept that there is no evidence for FET (in this case) and all the evidence in the world (well literally as you can see the horizon at any point in the world) for RET.

I wasn't under the impression that this form of perspective was sudden. Simply put, terrain is always uneven so to see how an object looks at great distances, we need a surface which doesn't vary significantly in height. Calm water is such a surface, and when watching a ship get farther away, more and more of the ship appears to disappear from view. This is hardly, all of a sudden.

I wasn't under the impression that this form of perspective was sudden. Simply put, terrain is always uneven so to see how an object looks at great distances, we need a surface which doesn't vary significantly in height. Calm water is such a surface, and when watching a ship get farther away, more and more of the ship appears to disappear from view. This is hardly, all of a sudden.

But you don't see the disappearing effect until it gets a certain distance from you, so it does occur all of a sudden. What I meant by "Sudden" was not Instantaneous (why do you keep making assumptions about what I am saying). If I meant instantaneous I would have said instantaneous.

By "sudden", I mean that the effect is there at one moment (well distance) and then the next moment (further distance) the effect is there. As the effect is not there until the object is a certain distance away, it does occur suddenly.

The reason you don't get it until it has gone a certain distance from you, is that you are not observing from the surface, but from approximately 1.5 m above it. If this effect was due to perspective and not due to curvature, then you would see it occur right from the start. As this effect occurs after a certain distance, then it has to be due to curvature and not perspective.

Learn about geometry and you won't keep making these same mistakes.

And, if it was down to distance only, then why doe it not occur with the lateral angles? And why does it still occur for the horizon when you turn your head to the side (so that your ear touches your shoulder)?

Also, if it was due to variations in the surface heights, then there would be vast differences between horizons with only little variations in height and this is not the case.

FE response: It's an illusion created by bendy light.

hah

Honestly I have no idea what you folks are talking about.  I see no curvature in that picture.

really? geez

For a boat to disappear due to perspective, it would have to be a lot further away than when boats disappear when they sail away from you. And yes, these boat have half disappeared horizontally, but haven't vertically.....

Light bends fast as it gets closer to the earth and also based on rim distance and location angle, due to there being less aether near Earth.  This causes Sunrises, sunsets, the sinking ship, the midnight sun, and the illusion of the night sky rotating.  This is known as aetheric eddification.  The equations are not yet ready.

  The equations are not yet ready.

They werent ready last year either. When will they be ready?

Quote from: Mr. Davis on January 20, 2009, 03:22:29 AM

  The equations are not yet ready.

They werent ready last year either. When will they be ready?

I'm sorry I can't throw out a unified theory in a year while working and living a life.  I am unsure when they will be ready, but as time permits.  In the mean while, I believe eddification formula I supplied last year works fine for many things, but requires more calculations as it relates mostly to the sun.

I believe you knew this as you quoted it in September in an attempt to test its accuracy.

I never did see the results from this though.