Another B.L. Question

Awhile back I asked a question about B.L. and what it looks like diagrammed and what I thought it would mean in life.

Now I have another question.


So why does it do this? Wouldn't this make for problems standing on Earth in general?

What is that green bar in the 2nd picture?

The flat earth. Lemme change that up a bit.

Satellites don't exist on FE.

Satellites don't exist on FE.

Some FE'ers claim that there are pictures from that far out in space, and it looks round because of BL. I used "Satellite" because I thought "Picture Box" was a silly thing to write.

Don't bother.  Nothing you say can persuade a true believer from accepting that he/she is wrong nor can it stop a troll who just wants to piss you off from stopping.

Why are you making a thread about a concept which has been disproved? Beeny light has been shown not to exist.

Why are you making a thread about a concept which has been disproved? Beeny light has been shown not to exist.

Because I'd still like an understanding.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 01, 2010, 01:42:30 PM

Why are you making a thread about a concept which has been disproved? Beeny light has been shown not to exist.

Because I'd still like an understanding.

Then allow me to explain it.

Bendy light was created to help explain things like why the sun sets instead of fading off into the distance.  It's a poor attempt to make the circular peg of Round Earth fit into the square peg of Flat Earth.

Quote from: JBJosh on May 01, 2010, 01:48:50 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 01, 2010, 01:42:30 PM

Why are you making a thread about a concept which has been disproved? Beeny light has been shown not to exist.

Because I'd still like an understanding.

Then allow me to explain it.

Bendy light was created to help explain things like why the sun sets instead of fading off into the distance.  It's a poor attempt to make the circular peg of Round Earth fit into the square peg of Flat Earth.

From what I have seen, it has been proven wrong to RE'ers, I get that. But I do have a legitimate question about BL, and I don't need any of this "Bendy Light has been disproved, dummy!" because, if you haven't noticed, some people on this site believe it, or at least claim to believe it.

Telling me things I already anticipate you guys to say is not relevant to my interests nor this thread, but if you have some constructive criticism of my understanding of BL, and would like to share it, be my guest. That is incredibly relevant to my interests.

No one believes bendy light but Parsifal who’s not even FE

Wilmore?

Considering I just copy pasted that sentence from a post by Wilmore, I'd say no.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 01, 2010, 02:03:06 PM

Quote from: JBJosh on May 01, 2010, 01:48:50 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 01, 2010, 01:42:30 PM

Why are you making a thread about a concept which has been disproved? Beeny light has been shown not to exist.

Because I'd still like an understanding.

Then allow me to explain it.

Bendy light was created to help explain things like why the sun sets instead of fading off into the distance.  It's a poor attempt to make the circular peg of Round Earth fit into the square peg of Flat Earth.

From what I have seen, it has been proven wrong to RE'ers, I get that. But I do have a legitimate question about BL, and I don't need any of this "Bendy Light has been disproved, dummy!" because, if you haven't noticed, some people on this site believe it, or at least claim to believe it.

Telling me things I already anticipate you guys to say is not relevant to my interests nor this thread, but if you have some constructive criticism of my understanding of BL, and would like to share it, be my guest. That is incredibly relevant to my interests.

Well I can tell you that your interpretation of Bendy light is accurate.  

Considering I just copy pasted that sentence from a post by Wilmore, I'd say no.

Please show me where you got it from.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 01, 2010, 02:21:39 PM

Considering I just copy pasted that sentence from a post by Wilmore, I'd say no.

Please show me where you got it from.

He said it in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38194.0 , though it seems he later edited it.

because, if you haven't noticed, some people on this site believe it, or at least claim to believe it.

They HAVE to pretend the disproof doesn't exist because without it there's a load of holes that sink the entire flat earth idea, depending on which model you want to use. The people you refer to are sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalala". They just make like nobody ever pointed out the massive flaws.

Quote from: JBJosh on May 01, 2010, 02:19:06 PM

because, if you haven't noticed, some people on this site believe it, or at least claim to believe it.

They HAVE to pretend the disproof doesn't exist because without it there's a load of holes that sink the entire flat earth idea, depending on which model you want to use. The people you refer to are sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalala". They just make like nobody ever pointed out the massive flaws.

That doesn't take away from the fact that I would like to know if my interpretation is correct to them.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I am very much of the opinion that raising the beeny light topic makes it appear to newbies as if it might be a theory of some validity. This perpetuates it in forum discussions. If we all shut up about it, beeny light would die a death and no longer be used by anybody to explain anything.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I am very much of the opinion that raising the beeny light topic makes it appear to newbies as if it might be a theory of some validity. This perpetuates it in forum discussions. If we all shut up about it, beeny light would die a death and no longer be used by anybody to explain anything.

That is so stupid.

It's in the FAQ. If these "newbies" go to the FAQ, they will see EA. Then they will ask about it.

Also, your whole logic behind this is pretty baffling, as well. Maybe we should stop talking about terrible things that happened in history, as well. Slavery should be worked out of the history books, because talking about it would make it appear to be a valid way of doing things.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 03, 2010, 12:21:04 PM

Yes, I'm aware of that. I am very much of the opinion that raising the beeny light topic makes it appear to newbies as if it might be a theory of some validity. This perpetuates it in forum discussions. If we all shut up about it, beeny light would die a death and no longer be used by anybody to explain anything.

That is so stupid.

It's in the FAQ. If these "newbies" go to the FAQ, they will see EA. Then they will ask about it.

Also, your whole logic behind this is pretty baffling, as well. Maybe we should stop talking about terrible things that happened in history, as well. Slavery should be worked out of the history books, because talking about it would make it appear to be a valid way of doing things.

 
Imagine a forum about medicine, on which various medical topics are discussed. Imagine it has an FAQ in which one of the questions is "How are diseases caused?" and the answer was "an imbalance in the four humours of the body, which are blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile".
On the forum, somebody points out that actually, diseases aren't caused by that at all, but by viruses and bacteria and so on, and presents evidence disproving the four humours. Several people on the forum accept this, but some continue to ignore the evidence and cling to the four humours theory.
New users come into the forum, read the FAQ and think, "hmmm, the FAQ says that, so it must be a generally accepted theory." They then come into the forum and post questions about it. The fact that the four humours have become irrelevant to anything is beside the point - people won't realise their irrelevance if they think other people believe it.
If this analogy "baffles" you then you need to think a bit harder and deeper. Writing slavery out of the history books is not comparable to what I'm saying. Sure, present beeny light as part of the history of FE which we have now moved on from because it doesn't work.
Just because people once believed something that was later found out to be wrong does not mean it should be taught as a possibility of being correct.

I can see why Wilmore gets annoyed.

It isn't irrelevant inside the environment of the message boards in your hypothetical situation. If someone on the message board reads the FAQ, then asks questions about it, there is no problem with it. They've set up a place where the Four Hurmours Theory is entirely relevant, but because it's wrong everywhere else, you have problems with that. That's a really bad reason for you to have a problem, since there isn't one. Also, this is all interesting coming from you, since you are an active user here.

Leaving things in the Wiki for posterity reasons isn't bad so long as you write "This theory has been since dis proven"

Leaving things in the Wiki for posterity reasons isn't bad so long as you write "This theory has been since dis proven"

If they did that, they would have to write that phrase on every page.

They are reluctant to remove anything because they can't come up with any better explanations to make their theory work. I mean seriously, how can they possibly believe something that they can't even come up with a working model to describe?

He said it in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38194.0 , though it seems he later edited it.

I didn't edit anything. If I had, it would say 'edited' at the end of the post. You obviously didn't copypaste anything.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 01, 2010, 02:28:46 PM

He said it in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38194.0 , though it seems he later edited it.

I didn't edit anything. If I had, it would say 'edited' at the end of the post. You obviously didn't copypaste anything.

Well, then I took the quote from another post of yours. I know for a fact that you've written that exact reply(Because I copy-pased it into a word document and knew it'd be useful later on).

Though it's all irrelevant because: 1) You did say Parsifal isn't FE and 2) Not a single FE'er has stepped forward to believe in the idea

Bent light is well known to be utterly wrong. Forget it.

Well, then I took the quote from another post of yours. I know for a fact that you've written that exact reply(Because I copy-pased it into a word document and knew it'd be useful later on).

Don't think so. Doesn't look like something I'd say, though if you can find the post I'll happily retract that statement.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 05, 2010, 09:52:34 AM

Well, then I took the quote from another post of yours. I know for a fact that you've written that exact reply(Because I copy-pased it into a word document and knew it'd be useful later on).

Don't think so. Doesn't look like something I'd say, though if you can find the post I'll happily retract that statement.

As I said, it's irrelevant what exactly you said because there's proof that it's true anyway.

Fair enough, I just don't like being misquoted. However, as JBJosh has already said, your whole point is irrelevant. The theory exists, and he wants to understand it better. It doesn't matter who does or doesn't believe it.

Fair enough, I just don't like being misquoted. However, as JBJosh has already said, your whole point is irrelevant. The theory exists, and he wants to understand it better. It doesn't matter who does or doesn't believe it.

It matters. There's no point discussing a theory no one believes in or think is possible.