Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory

  • 113 Replies
  • 15524 Views
*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« on: January 10, 2010, 05:09:19 PM »
I believe the pervailing explanation for the illusion of gravity is that the Earth Disc is traveling upwards at a high rate right? 

Well upon reading this article from Claude Johnson (or from interviews with him I should say)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

He says the stars are about as far away from us as San Francisco is to Boston.

Why haven't we hit them yet?  Or are they moving up up too?

And if the illusion of gravity is being caused by us moving up, why do I not feel any pressure on my shoulders or head?  In other words, why do I feel as if I am being pulled to the Earth rather than pushed to it?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2010, 06:21:05 PM »
I believe the pervailing explanation for the illusion of gravity is that the Earth Disc is traveling upwards at a high rate right? 

Accelerating up, yes.

Why haven't we hit them yet?  Or are they moving up up too?

They are also accelerating up. Please read the FAQ.

And if the illusion of gravity is being caused by us moving up, why do I not feel any pressure on my shoulders or head?  In other words, why do I feel as if I am being pulled to the Earth rather than pushed to it?

Because the Earth is pushing you up from beneath. Please enrol in a physics class at your local high school.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2010, 06:26:44 PM »
Sorry, I must be thinking in terms of centrifugal force for the gravity thing.  My bad.


Also, how does the atmosphere work?

How is it staying in place around Flat Earth and not getting sluffed off as it moves up?  What's holding atmosphere on would be better way to word the question I guess.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2010, 06:31:54 PM »
Also, how does the atmosphere work?

How is it staying in place around Flat Earth and not getting sluffed off as it moves up?  What's holding atmosphere on would be better way to word the question I guess.

The Greater Ice Wall.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2010, 06:34:48 PM »
Does that mean if one were to fly above the Ice Wall the atmosphere would end (because that explanation would only allow for the Atmosphere to be as tall as the Ice Wall)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2010, 06:49:13 PM »
Does that mean if one were to fly above the Ice Wall the atmosphere would end (because that explanation would only allow for the Atmosphere to be as tall as the Ice Wall)

The Greater Ice Wall, yes. Not the lesser one nearby, the greater one further away.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2010, 06:58:56 PM »
Which would have to go realllly far up. Why can't we see the 1000-10000 km wall?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2010, 07:04:41 PM »
Which would have to go realllly far up. Why can't we see the 1000-10000 km wall?

Well, for one thing, it's very far away. For another, the phenomenon of bendy light causes faraway objects not to be visible.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2010, 07:51:51 PM »
Well, for one thing, it's very far away. For another, the phenomenon of bendy light causes faraway objects not to be visible.

Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

Also has there ever been any experiment done to confirm the validity of the bendy light phenomenon, as simple observation does not does not suffice when they are alternative explanation exist?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2010, 08:43:06 PM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

Also has there ever been any experiment done to confirm the validity of the bendy light phenomenon, as simple observation does not does not suffice when they are alternative explanation exist?

No. Has light ever been experimentally proven to travel in straight lines?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2010, 08:50:08 PM »
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
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2010, 09:06:17 PM »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2010, 09:12:38 PM »
Yes.  http://www.tutorvista.com/content/science/science-ii/reflection-light/rectilinear-propagation.php


And what is the uncertainty in the measured curvature in that experiment?

Better than any experiment that you've come up with to prove the existence of an EA.
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
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2010, 09:13:36 PM »
Better than any experiment that you've come up with to prove the existence of an EA.

Can I get a quantitative answer, please?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
-David
E pur si muove!

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2010, 09:53:10 PM »
What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

I simply think calling it "Light Curvature Theory" or something along those lines would sound more professional.  It's all for appearances really, and it doesn't affect the theory itself.

No. Has light ever been experimentally proven to travel in straight lines?
It depends on the type of light you're talking about, and whether we're talking about light as photons or light as wavelengths.

Light functions very differently depending on the the charge of the photons and its wavelength.  There's no uniform behavior to describe all of it, and I believe many experiments done by Neils Bohr proved that.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2010, 09:56:57 PM »
the charge of the photons

EPIC FAIL. Would consider sig'gin'.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2010, 10:27:38 PM »
I simply think calling it "Light Curvature Theory" or something along those lines would sound more professional.  It's all for appearances really, and it doesn't affect the theory itself.

Its formal title is "Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory", for the unknown force called the Electromagnetic Accelerator that causes it. "Bendy light" is its most often used colloquial name.

It depends on the type of light you're talking about, and whether we're talking about light as photons or light as wavelengths.

Light doesn't have two different natures, it has one dual nature.

Light functions very differently depending on the the charge of the photons and its wavelength.  There's no uniform behavior to describe all of it, and I believe many experiments done by Neils Bohr proved that.

I don't think you understand light.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2010, 10:45:58 PM »
I will admit, most of my knowledge of light is through chemistry and not physics, so I think of it in terms of photons released by atoms as their electrons descend from excited states.

I don't take physics until next year.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2010, 07:49:34 AM »
Better than any experiment that you've come up with to prove the existence of an EA.

Can I get a quantitative answer, please?

That depends.  Can you give us a quantitative analysis of the EA for comparison?
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.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2010, 09:25:01 AM »
Tom Bishop has proved that true qualitative evidence can be easily overturned through semantics and question dodging.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2010, 11:21:19 AM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2010, 11:23:58 AM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
How was it proven light does not bend? How was it proven the Earth is not Flat?

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2010, 11:26:02 AM »

Except when it doesn't.

Gravitational lensing is not an example of light being bent in the way that Parsifal wants. In gravitational lensing space time itself is given a curvature and technically the light is travelling in a straight line within that region of space time. It looks bent to us because we are outside the area of curved space time.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2010, 11:28:28 AM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
How?

I think he's basically saying the Earth being round is as valid an explanation for light activity as light being bendy, so it should not be considered evidence until either bendy or straight light is proven or dis proven.

And actually bendy light hasn't been disproved I think, because I'm pretty syre science has proven light bends in the presence of black holes, which is why they are black.

But, that doesn't prove the bendy light in FE, because then there would have to be a black hole nearby.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2010, 11:30:55 AM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
How was it proven light does not bend? How was it proven the Earth is not Flat?

I didnt say it was proven the earth wasnt flat I said it was NOT proven that it was flat. Not the same thing at all. Bendy light is only visibly effective when looking at a horizon and assuming that the earth is flat. You cant see bendy light at any other time. So you see that evidence for bendy light rests entirely on the earth having to be flat. Which is not a proven thing. Its like if I had a red marble and you said "whats that" and I said "its a dragons eye" that rests entirely on the existence of dragons themselves.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2010, 11:32:24 AM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
How?

I think he's basically saying the Earth being round is as valid an explanation for light activity as light being bendy, so it should not be considered evidence until either bendy or straight light is proven or dis proven.

And actually bendy light hasn't been disproved I think, because I'm pretty syre science has proven light bends in the presence of black holes, which is why they are black.

But, that doesn't prove the bendy light in FE, because then there would have to be a black hole nearby.

Black holes create the same warping of space time as in gravitational lensing. Within that space time the light is technically travelling in a straight line.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

jtelroy

  • 479
  • Intellectual
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2010, 11:35:07 AM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
How?

I think he's basically saying the Earth being round is as valid an explanation for light activity as light being bendy, so it should not be considered evidence until either bendy or straight light is proven or dis proven.

And actually bendy light hasn't been disproved I think, because I'm pretty syre science has proven light bends in the presence of black holes, which is why they are black.

But, that doesn't prove the bendy light in FE, because then there would have to be a black hole nearby.

Black holes create the same warping of space time as in gravitational lensing. Within that space time the light is technically travelling in a straight line.

I see. As I have said I have not taken any physics yet, so I'm not a real source on the subject.

I'll take your word for it though, since you seem to know more than I do.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2010, 12:30:12 PM »
Is there a more scientific term for this phenomenon other than Bendy light?

What makes "bendy light" unscientific?

The only way to measure the bendiness of light is to rely on an assumption which is the earth being flat. That is itself an unproved ingredient of the equation. There is no evidence of light being bendy without looking at a horizon. Bendy light was disproved ages ago but your pretending not to notice.
How was it proven light does not bend? How was it proven the Earth is not Flat?

I didnt say it was proven the earth wasnt flat I said it was NOT proven that it was flat. Not the same thing at all. Bendy light is only visibly effective when looking at a horizon and assuming that the earth is flat. You cant see bendy light at any other time. So you see that evidence for bendy light rests entirely on the earth having to be flat. Which is not a proven thing. Its like if I had a red marble and you said "whats that" and I said "its a dragons eye" that rests entirely on the existence of dragons themselves.
So, was it proven the Earth is of some particular shape?

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
Re: Two Conflciting Tenets of Flath Earth Theory
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2010, 03:26:16 PM »
So, was it proven the Earth is of some particular shape?

According to vast amounts of evidence the Earth is a sphere.

But to give the FE guys a chance, lets say the Earths shape is unknown, and that they must provide evidence and come to a conclusion of what the shape is - without first assuming what the shape is and making the evidence fit that assumption.


Sound fair?