Under the clouds?

Quote from: Maximohoundoom on May 20, 2010, 01:27:43 PM

So does this mean we can finally conclude that a flat earth requires bendy light and get back to testing bendy light? I think the last place we left from was when somebody said that they didn't have a working model of our sun and bendy light. I seem to remember telling them to make one already if they actually want to prove their point.

*sigh*
Testing beeny light is a dead end because we already know that it doesn't exist. I've lost count of the number of times I've said this: bendy light predicts effects on star positions which are not observed happening. If a theory predicts an effect and that effect isn't happening, then the theory cannot be correct.

They try to get around that by not having a definite set of equations to describe the effects of BL. If you don't describe how it acts, you can't test it, and therefore can't disprove it.

We should collect all the information about this light problem and present it as a well structured, step-by-step explanation as to why the earth cannot possibly be flat. Then, the only ones who could deny it are the religious flat earth supporters. A religious flat earth supporter would be going against his own principle of searching for the truth through observable facts.

How is that a religious principle?

No, searching for the truth through observable facts isn't a religious principle, it's the Flat Earth Society's principle (Zeteticism). They supposedly must be able to observe everything with their own senses and without the use of any machinery made by someone else. When I say religious flat earth supporter, I mean one who will ignore evidence when it's presented to him.

Who are these religious flat-earth supporters?  Do they have a website?

Who are these religious flat-earth supporters?  Do they have a website?

As I said, a religious flat earth supportor is one who will ignore evidence when it's presented to them.

In this case we have the following problem with the Flat Earth model:
1- If light moves in almost straight paths, the morning sun would start at over 70º in the sky. This is not what we observe.
2- If light bends according to any mathematical rule, the position of the sun, the stars and the moon will not line up with what we really observe.

On a Flath earth, light can't travel in a straight line or bend according to a mathematical rule. In other words, either light is controlled by magic, or the earth is round. Whoever ignores this evidence is a religious flat earth supporter.

As I said, a religious flat earth supportor is one who will ignore evidence when it's presented to them.

In this case we have the following problem with the Flat Earth model:
1- If light moves in almost straight paths, the morning sun would start at over 70º in the sky. This is not what we observe.
2- If light bends according to any mathematical rule, the position of the sun, the stars and the moon will not line up with what we really observe.

On a Flath earth, light can't travel in a straight line or bend according to a mathematical rule. In other words, either light is controlled by magic, or the earth is round. Whoever ignores this evidence is a religious flat earth supporter.

But the flat earth sun moves.  What sun path are you using for your calculations?

2- If light bends according to any mathematical rule, the position of the sun, the stars and the moon will not line up with what we really observe.

Please justify this statement.

Also, did you notice how flat the earth looks in your pic?  I did.  In fact, your measurements seem to rely heavily on that right angle.

"If the Earth is round, why aren't there curves in your euclidean right triangle?  Herp derp."

If light bends upwards then how do we see stars near the horizon?

Guys no FE'ers believe in bendy light. Stop arguing it.

But the flat earth sun moves.  What sun path are you using for your calculations?

I explained all this in an earlier post. I'm supposing the sun is 32.000km in the sky and moves in a circular path above the equator, which has a perimeter of about 40.000km. I'm supposing the morning sun is a quarter-circle distance away from the observe in the morning, which is about 10.000km.

But the path doesn't really matter. If the sun is at a constant positive altitude, it will never get near enough to the horizon to disappear behind it.

I apologize.  I've found your previous post.

If light bends upwards then how do we see stars near the horizon?

I don't understand the question. Why wouldn't we see stars near the horizon?

The same reason sailboats disappear behind the horizon. The light bends upward and cannot be seen by someone standing on the ground.

Who are these religious flat-earth supporters?

Zion, Illinois.

Do they have a website?

http://www.ccczion.org/  (the current incarnation of the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church)

The same reason sailboats disappear behind the horizon. The light bends upward and cannot be seen by someone standing on the ground.

There would still be stars visible near the horizon, they just would appear to be where they weren't.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 13, 2010, 08:34:30 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on May 13, 2010, 06:22:18 PM

This issue has been brought up before, and bendy light provides an explanation.

Bendy light has been debunked over 9000 times.
Beam neutrinos disproves your sun itself.
that one vid of the sun from near earth orbit disproves the disk shaped sun.
the mathematics behind force and acceleration disprove it right off the bat.

Give me another thing

Sources? Maths?

Light bends upwards; that is why the clouds are illuminated from the bottom.

And your sources?  Maths?

I observed this phenomenon again today. (very common)  The clouds were lit from below as though the sun's rays were shining from below the cloud height.

This is 100% proof that the Earth is round as the sun can not, under any circumstances, shine light from below the clouds otherwise.

And if you wanna play the Bendy Light card, know that not all FEers believe in Bendy light, so what do THEY say?

I observed this phenomenon again today. (very common)  The clouds were lit from below as though the sun's rays were shining from below the cloud height.

This is 100% proof that the Earth is round as the sun can not, under any circumstances, shine light from below the clouds otherwise.

And if you wanna play the Bendy Light card, know that not all FEers believe in Bendy light, so what do THEY say?

Wait when you say the clouds were lit from below, what exactly do you mean...

Quote from: Lorddave on June 03, 2010, 06:20:07 PM

I observed this phenomenon again today. (very common)  The clouds were lit from below as though the sun's rays were shining from below the cloud height.

This is 100% proof that the Earth is round as the sun can not, under any circumstances, shine light from below the clouds otherwise.

And if you wanna play the Bendy Light card, know that not all FEers believe in Bendy light, so what do THEY say?

Wait when you say the clouds were lit from below, what exactly do you mean...

Something like this:

Yea, pretty difficult to explain that. It's possible with like multiple suns I guess, but it would just create a bunch of other problems. So yea, idk how FE'ers could explain that.

Yea, pretty difficult to explain that. It's possible with like multiple suns I guess, but it would just create a bunch of other problems. So yea, idk how FE'ers could explain that.

A previous reply to this problem by FET was that the light is reflected off the surface of the earth.

If that is the case, the clouds would be lit from the top too.

Quote from: Tech on June 03, 2010, 08:34:02 PM

Yea, pretty difficult to explain that. It's possible with like multiple suns I guess, but it would just create a bunch of other problems. So yea, idk how FE'ers could explain that.

A previous reply to this problem by FET was that the light is reflected off the surface of the earth.

If that is the case, the clouds would be lit from the top too.

Well the thing is, even with light being reflected, wouldn't create that effect of a cloud being lighter on bottom than on top/sides...so yea agreed