Constellation difference between North and South

How does FE explain the difference in constellations between the North and South 'hemispheres'? From what I've read in your FAQ, it should be possible for me to see all the constellations from one point on the earth in a given year.

How does FE explain the difference in constellations between the North and South 'hemispheres'? From what I've read in your FAQ, it should be possible for me to see all the constellations from one point on the earth in a given year.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator effect causes the light from distant stars to bend away from you, so that you can only see the nearby ones.

Sunrise and sunset (and similar phenomena) are far better explained by Electromagnetic Accelerator theory than by the perspective effect.

Sunrise and sunset (and similar phenomena) are far better explained by Electromagnetic Accelerator theory than by the perspective effect.

Light doesn't bend. Go away with your electromagnetic accelerator.

Quote from: Delthan on March 16, 2009, 04:43:24 PM

How does FE explain the difference in constellations between the North and South 'hemispheres'? From what I've read in your FAQ, it should be possible for me to see all the constellations from one point on the earth in a given year.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator effect causes the light from distant stars to bend away from you, so that you can only see the nearby ones.

Steve, stop spamming the boards with your Electromagnetic Accelerator crap.

(And dear god Steffany your answer doesn't even come close to answering the OP question)

Light doesn't bend. Go away with your electromagnetic accelerator.

I will not stop supporting this theory until it is sufficiently discredited.

Steve, stop spamming the boards with your Electromagnetic Accelerator crap.

(And dear god Steffany your answer doesn't even come close to answering the OP question)

On the contrary, it is the only sensible answer.

I believe I may have missed this Electromagnetic affect in the FAQ.... could you give me the basics of this effect?

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 10:01:04 AM

Light doesn't bend. Go away with your electromagnetic accelerator.

I will not stop supporting this theory until it is sufficiently discredited.

There's nothing to discredit. Listen sweetheart I don't want to break your heart but you've not yet made hypothesis. As to the electromagnetic accelerator theory. I think this reply sums it up nicely.

Quote from: ragnarr on March 17, 2009, 08:28:20 AM

And on side note... "according to the EA theory". Where I can find info about that outside this forum?

You can't. It is my own theory, and what little documentation of it exists at this stage is confined to the Flat Earth Society forums.

Ie, its all horseshit. Take your horseshit elsewhere.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 10:01:04 AM

Light doesn't bend. Go away with your electromagnetic accelerator.

I will not stop supporting this theory until it is sufficiently discredited.

You haven't really given any supporting evidence for why EA should be supported over other theories.

I believe I may have missed this Electromagnetic affect in the FAQ.... could you give me the basics of this effect?

I don't think it is in the FAQ.

Essentially, every ray of electromagnetic radiation gets bent upwards in a parabolic arc. This causes objects beyond the horizon not to be visible, and it also causes heavenly bodies to appear to set below the horizon when they are far away.

There's nothing to discredit.

How about providing a good reason why light does not bend?

You haven't really given any supporting evidence for why EA should be supported over other theories.

It explains sunrise and sunset much better than the perspective effect, for one thing.

It explains sunrise and sunset much better than the perspective effect, for one thing.

So does the planet being round, yet this is completely dismissed.

Quote from: Obamabam on March 17, 2009, 10:01:04 AM

Light doesn't bend. Go away with your electromagnetic accelerator.

I will not stop supporting this theory until it is sufficiently discredited.

How about supporting your theory with a thesis.

It explains sunrise and sunset much better than the perspective effect, for one thing.

That may be so, but we need to find out.  Can EA make any predictions that the other model(s) cannot?  What effects are explained with EA that cannot be explained with other models?  Do other models answer questions that EA cannot do without added complexity?

So does the planet being round, yet this is completely dismissed.

I firmly believe that, in time, the EA theory will come to explain many phenomena that RET cannot.

How about supporting your theory with a thesis.

I intend to, when I have the time. In the meantime, I find debating it on here to be the best way to develop it.

That may be so, but we need to find out.  Can EA make any predictions that the other model(s) cannot?  What effects are explained with EA that cannot be explained with other models?  Do other models answer questions that EA cannot do without added complexity?

I do not know yet. It is a developing theory.

Quote from: NTheGreat on March 17, 2009, 11:06:56 AM

So does the planet being round, yet this is completely dismissed.

I firmly believe that, in time, the EA theory will come to explain many phenomena that RET cannot.

Quote from: markjo on March 17, 2009, 11:07:51 AM

How about supporting your theory with a thesis.

I intend to, when I have the time. In the meantime, I find debating it on here to be the best way to develop it.

Quote from: ragnarr on March 17, 2009, 11:11:31 AM

That may be so, but we need to find out.  Can EA make any predictions that the other model(s) cannot?  What effects are explained with EA that cannot be explained with other models?  Do other models answer questions that EA cannot do without added complexity?

I do not know yet. It is a developing theory.

Then please stop presenting it as a developed theory.

The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.


http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm

Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.