Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective

  • 124 Replies
  • 20700 Views
?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2010, 02:37:06 PM »
As for the shape of the sun?  You're totally correct.  FET can then be modified to include a spherical 'lightbulb' sun.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2010, 10:52:55 PM »
Quote
Pointing the IR light at where the horizon appears to be, since light coming from the horizon would be bent up, and cause the horizon to be lower than the astronomic horizon, would have the beam move down towards the water, and bend up and form a tangent along the surface of the water at the light path's parabolic vertex, blocking the light beam, and preventing observers from seeing it on the other side.   You may be right about the multiple observers, though.  Since the side to side earth-curvature illusion would appear elliptical, there would be measurable curve in the beam, if viewed from the side.  Good point.

In FE you can point it just above the Horizon and I would still be correct.. In regards to the Vertex you need to give me data on how severe the bending of light (how deep and wide the bowl is, and how this is applied over the entire surface of the flat plane..Hence the entire plane can not be just 1 parabolic bowl otherwise again the FE theory fails. Hence, all observers sit in a parabolic bowl to where the two would cross and intersect each other over a flat plane. So in the following image every observer would have their own vertex, and represent the vertex... However, over a flat plane these would overlap each other, and to the observer there would be a lot of warping.. If the Bowls intersect, my argument would be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg

Thus you would have to apply this to every observer, and it would literally show all kinds of warping.. And this can't be done over a flat plane with a spotlight ;)

Quote
This is not an example of perspective.  Only relating to particle physics because light is involved.  Since the light is either travelling straight, in a parabolic curve(FE), or refracting/diffracting/reflecting, this is simply a matter of geometry.  No need to bring particles into this, as what light is made of is irrelevant to this discussion.

Particle physics has everything thing to do with lasers, and IR lasers.. I brought it up for a reason.. But yes, not really necessary.. At the End of the day, FE is entirely incorrect. Like I said the more points of observation the more this theory collapses.

Quote
Don't post unless you can prove your insulting claim that I don't understand physics, unless you want me to post an unprovable claim that you have no grasp of geometry.

The insulting is irrelevant, but then again so is FE.. I don't think you understand the physics and why such a claim simply fails.. Hence can you tell me what kind of warping you would get if this individual was walking through the mountains if the observer = V. Or even if this observer is in a flat plain or field.. In the flat field or plain He should see himself as being in a bowl (this never happens). And when you gain altitude the view below the observer would warp in correctly from what we actually see when we take off in a hot air balloon for example..

1)
2) (how did your spot light magically go Horizontal?, and who's viewing this as being high noon directly over head?..Yeah FE = Fail)
3)
4) (even while this pilot is inverted the curve vs bowl is present)

This does not show any sort of parabolic bowl, or even remotely close to FE theory..

These should be Fun to watch ;)






One of them you can watch the entire balloon ride all the way up :)

Oh but lets GO OLD SCHOOL! LOL

« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 11:49:40 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #62 on: July 15, 2010, 11:07:32 PM »
As for the shape of the sun?  You're totally correct.  FET can then be modified to include a spherical 'lightbulb' sun.

LOL, If you have to modify your theory, you equal Fail. So now it goes from flashlight to light bulb LMAO.. And in regards to the Sun's and moon's distances.. Learn wtf Radar is.. ;) Your theory just keeps collapsing, And all you are doing at this point is back peddling ;).. So now you will have to back paddle on the "Spot light" theory as well, And this would illuminate the entire flat plane regardless if its on the horizon or at high noon! .. And do you comprehend what a horizontal light (sphere, or disk) would do across the horizontal plane or entire surface of the Earth if it were flat?  The very fact that you have a horizontal sunset and sunrise at the West and East collapses the Entire FE theory.. You obviously didn't read my First post.. Nor did you read that by taking angular measurements of where the Sun is in the Sky in terms of horizon and direct perspective to the observer around the world will actually verify that this planet of ours is indeed a Sphere as well!.  You're not fooling anyone here. The very fact you have to back peddle is all that needs to be said. And I will save you the argument of vertical velocity physics and why every FE theory is essentially a cluster of nonsensical garbage :/


I'll just leave this here for you too:




Oh lets Talk Light Physics ;)



YAY a Chair in Space! :)




Lastly, This means you also have to back peddle on the MOON! ;)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 01:14:41 AM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2010, 12:14:31 PM »
As for the shape of the sun?  You're totally correct.  FET can then be modified to include a spherical 'lightbulb' sun.

LOL, If you have to modify your theory, you equal Fail. So now it goes from flashlight to light bulb LMAO.. And in regards to the Sun's and moon's distances.. Learn wtf Radar is.. ;) Your theory just keeps collapsing, And all you are doing at this point is back peddling ;).. So now you will have to back paddle on the "Spot light" theory as well, And this would illuminate the entire flat plane regardless if its on the horizon or at high noon! .. And do you comprehend what a horizontal light (sphere, or disk) would do across the horizontal plane or entire surface of the Earth if it were flat?  The very fact that you have a horizontal sunset and sunrise at the West and East collapses the Entire FE theory.. You obviously didn't read my First post.. Nor did you read that by taking angular measurements of where the Sun is in the Sky in terms of horizon and direct perspective to the observer around the world will actually verify that this planet of ours is indeed a Sphere as well!.  You're not fooling anyone here. The very fact you have to back peddle is all that needs to be said. And I will save you the argument of vertical velocity physics and why every FE theory is essentially a cluster of nonsensical garbage :/


Thats how theories work.  when new evidence is brought forth that shows a theory to be flawed, the theory is modified to accept the new data.  Besides, their flat sun theory is more or less separate from flat earth.  There's nothing in flat earth theory that prevents the sun from being round.

Also this isn't my thoery.  I'm all for round-earth, but I'm just trying to argue from a neutral stance, as per the forum rules.

As for the "bowl effect" you think I'm talking about, light bending upwards would make everything else appear to bend downwards, creating a parabolic dome illusion, with the observer at the vertex.  The light would have to curve with a scale similar to the curvature of round earth.  I'm also pointing out that if they can measure the apparent curvature of the earth as an arc or a parabola, they can conclusively decide whether the earth is round or flat.  I they don't see this warping you're talking about, this theory indeed falls on its face.

ROFL! don't get me started on their moon theories!  I've already determined through their own zetetic method, based on my moon observations, that the Earth is round.  Also by showing here that their basis that the Earth looks flat is not true regardless of whether the earth really is flat or not, all their zetetic 'meditations' on this observation fall like a pyramid of cards.

Yes.  Radar works too.  Unless you think the conspiracy rigged it.  (Not serious)

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #64 on: July 16, 2010, 01:41:24 PM »
Quote
Thats how theories work.  when new evidence is brought forth that shows a theory to be flawed, the theory is modified to accept the new data.  Besides, their flat sun theory is more or less separate from flat earth.  There's nothing in flat earth theory that prevents the sun from being round.

Please tell me you comprehend why this is a false statement. Yes, theories work like that, but remember they are stating it as a fact LOL.. And you do realize that a spherical Sun completely destroys the Flat Earth theory, especially in day / night cycles, the infinite plane BS, the spot light theory, the moon theory, the light bending theory ect.. it completely collapses their entire fallacious construct. Please don't post how it doesn't effect or change anything when it does lol.. This reply of yours is completely circular nonsense.

Quote
Also this isn't my thoery.  I'm all for round-earth, but I'm just trying to argue from a neutral stance, as per the forum rules.

This is irrelevant, It doesn't matter what side of the fence you are, all that matters it the facts and data, and what is accurate and what is not.. Sorry, but the Spherical Sun = fail, especially over a flat plane... And this is especially true when you have to explain how the sun is setting in the east and Rising in the west to two observers at all times.. Sorry that = Spherical Earth and also why the FE theory is completely false :) Though I respect your neutral position, I would expect a little honest discourse. I may be tough on people, but I do this for the sake of trying to educate them, and sometimes you have to bring them kicking and screaming into a reality check.

Quote
As for the "bowl effect" you think I'm talking about, light bending upwards would make everything else appear to bend downwards, creating a parabolic dome illusion, with the observer at the vertex.  The light would have to curve with a scale similar to the curvature of round earth.  I'm also pointing out that if they can measure the apparent curvature of the earth as an arc or a parabola, they can conclusively decide whether the earth is round or flat.  I they don't see this warping you're talking about, this theory indeed falls on its face.

Wrong, especially on a flat plane.. The red line in the diagram I gave you represents the bending of the light or horizon line to the observer, the gray line is the flat plane FE or ground surface to the RE observers .. Technically speaking your horizon would always be way above the observers eye level, and head level.. It would not be below it.. Your problem is that the "arc" of the curvature of the Earth in reality does not bend up wards if the person is looking at the horizon.. You can not turn a parabolic bowl into a magical parabolic dome from the vertex position over a flat plane! Sorry:/

Quote

ROFL! don't get me started on their moon theories!  I've already determined through their own zetetic method, based on my moon observations, that the Earth is round.

Same here ;)

Quote
Yes.  Radar works too.  Unless you think the conspiracy rigged it.  (Not serious)

Not really because this is the real way in which parallax is done.. It's the use of triangulation of other bodies such as Venus, the Moon, Earth, and the Sun.. This is how we determined the size of a Astronomical Unit, and how far things really are.. Their Parallax math is actually quite laughable, and is a prime example that they didn't do any math but rather make up a distance of 3,000 miles and just say they did the math lol.. Even if you didn't use Radar, and based it off your own observations, they still would be epically failing on the scale of getting 0+0 wrong... ;)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 01:45:17 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #65 on: July 16, 2010, 03:24:36 PM »
Quote
Thats how theories work.  when new evidence is brought forth that shows a theory to be flawed, the theory is modified to accept the new data.  Besides, their flat sun theory is more or less separate from flat earth.  There's nothing in flat earth theory that prevents the sun from being round.

Please tell me you comprehend why this is a false statement. Yes, theories work like that, but remember they are stating it as a fact LOL.. And you do realize that a spherical Sun completely destroys the Flat Earth theory, especially in day / night cycles, the infinite plane BS, the spot light theory, the moon theory, the light bending theory ect.. it completely collapses their entire fallacious construct. Please don't post how it doesn't effect or change anything when it does lol.. This reply of yours is completely circular nonsense.
you'll have to point out the circularity of my reasoning.  I admit that I'm not seeing it.

Quote
This is irrelevant, It doesn't matter what side of the fence you are, all that matters it the facts and data, and what is accurate and what is not.. Sorry, but the Spherical Sun = fail, especially over a flat plane... And this is especially true when you have to explain how the sun is setting in the east and Rising in the west to two observers at all times.. Sorry that = Spherical Earth and also why the FE theory is completely false :) Though I respect your neutral position, I would expect a little honest discourse. I may be tough on people, but I do this for the sake of trying to educate them, and sometimes you have to bring them kicking and screaming into a reality check.
This is exactly the kind of forcefeeding that got these people into this mess.  Not everyone thinks the same way. You can't expect everyone to believe what they're told because you say it is so.  Or because science says it is so.  Not everyone is scientifically aware enough to realize what science really is.  And such statements as this one make it seem like a ruthless dictatorship, and people will rebel.  This is a reality we need to face as educated people, unless we want the world run amock with such anti-science as ufology, creationism, conspiracy theories, astrology, flat-earthism, etc.  You can't force science on people.  Saying "Your wrong, because your theory is absurd" just doesn't cut it, and I think is totally unacceptable.  While I'm trying to iron out the small details for these people, you are just slamming  the conclusion in their face before I can get the logic behind it to sink in for them.

Quote
Wrong, especially on a flat plane.. The red line in the diagram I gave you represents the bending of the light or horizon line to the observer, the gray line is the flat plane FE or ground surface to the RE observers .. Technically speaking your horizon would always be way above the observers eye level, and head level.. It would not be below it.. Your problem is that the "arc" of the curvature of the Earth in reality does not bend up wards if the person is looking at the horizon.. You can not turn a parabolic bowl into a magical parabolic dome from the vertex position over a flat plane! Sorry:/
The light coming from the bottom of a cup of water bends downward upon crossing the water surface, making the bottom of the cup appear higher than it is... an easy experiment to try.  When light bends, it's source appears to shift opposite the bending.  In the case of the cup, water bends down, image shifts up.  In the case of EA, light bends up, image shifts down.  Since with EA, light is bending parabolically, the downward shift compounds with distance.  at some point the image of the ground will shift lower than the image for the ground will at a shorter distance, and you get a hill effect, the upper visible limit of which is what is called the true horizon.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #66 on: July 16, 2010, 05:19:06 PM »
Quote
you'll have to point out the circularity of my reasoning.  I admit that I'm not seeing it.

IE going back to the FE theory by stating that a spherical Sun wouldn't effect the FE theory.. This is called ignoring evidence, or applying the cause and effect of changing the value of spot light to spherical sun.. It was circular because you go right back to the FE light bending hypothesis without applying a massively different light source over a horizontal plane.


Quote
This is exactly the kind of forcefeeding that got these people into this mess.  Not everyone thinks the same way.

Facts aren't force fed, they are just simply facts. And yes people don't all think the same way. However, this doesn't change the facts, or that FE theory is a giant case of "Facts don't matter syndrome".. Thinking differently isn't going to magically make FE factual, or even remotely intelligible.. When you have people running around stating a Sun is a disk, or is 3,000 miles away as "Facts", they are setting themselves up to such scrutiny, and criticism to which they will argue is being force fed to them just so they can have the excuse to ignore them. I may not be friendly about it because I am a bit more bold and direct in my approach when it comes to confronting people that are obviously spewing nonsense..


Quote
You can't expect everyone to believe what they're told because you say it is so.  Or because science says it is so.  Not everyone is scientifically aware enough to realize what science really is.  And such statements as this one make it seem like a ruthless dictatorship, and people will rebel.

If FE is about "rebelling" they have a lot of growing up to do. Rebelling isn't going to magically make their ideological constructs or theories intelligible or relevant. Again irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote
  This is a reality we need to face as educated people, unless we want the world run amock with such anti-science as ufology, creationism, conspiracy theories, astrology, flat-earthism, etc.  You can't force science on people.  Saying "Your wrong, because your theory is absurd" just doesn't cut it, and I think is totally unacceptable.  While I'm trying to iron out the small details for these people, you are just slamming  the conclusion in their face before I can get the logic behind it to sink in for them.

Nobody here is holding a GUN to anyone's head to force them into science. However, if they are going to use science to support their position, they can't complain when their "science" is shown to be intelligible, illogical, false, wrong, miss leading, or intentionally ignorant. They have a choice to either be intelligent, or post nonsensical nonsense.. Hence, don't cry me a river if I bring down the hammer! That's emotional pleading to support the position, and doesn't make their position any more intelligible or relevant.

Quote
The light coming from the bottom of a cup of water bends downward upon crossing the water surface, making the bottom of the cup appear higher than it is... an easy experiment to try.  When light bends, it's source appears to shift opposite the bending.  In the case of the cup, water bends down, image shifts up.  In the case of EA, light bends up, image shifts down.  Since with EA, light is bending parabolically, the downward shift compounds with distance.  at some point the image of the ground will shift lower than the image for the ground will at a shorter distance, and you get a hill effect, the upper visible limit of which is what is called the true horizon.

Firstly, nobody is at the bottom of a cup of water.. Your entire post here is essentially irrelevant, and is still wrong according to parabolic bowl across a flat plane. And you do realize what kind of warping effects water has correct? This isn't an effect you are going to achieve with a Gas atmosphere, or light refraction in our atmosphere.. And in your hill effect, the distance to horizon wouldn't matter, it would still be greater than eye level, or always above your head.. And when you gain altitude there would be severe warping.. And you do realize that once the light source goes horizontal a "theoretical" parabolic effect over a flat plane would collapse entirely (ignoring the fact you can't achieve this over a flat plane).. Please don't compare light bending in liquid water to that of the atmosphere..

Your argument is basically trying to change the vertex position from a parabolic bowl into a parabolic reflect position at the same time.. Hence you can not state the vertex position to be in both the following positions  over a flat plane..  Also, the Focus point is always higher than the vertex position regardless of distance. So the horizon would always be over the vertex position at the focal point. So no matter what, the FE argument is false! The horizon is not above our heads, we do not have to look up to see the horizon.. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg/300px-Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Parabola_focus_directrix.svg/320px-Parabola_focus_directrix.svg.png

If you take Figure 2 and flip it upright,  the Focus point would be under the ground by several feet..This is not possible over a flat plane, much less an infinite flat plane. And it can not be done at any point along the surface of the plane... So you can not turn a flat plane into a parabolic reflect (dome)..

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You are either in the vertex position of a reflective dome, or parabolic bowl.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2010, 09:23:09 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2010, 09:28:22 AM »
Firstly, nobody is at the bottom of a cup of water.. Your entire post here is essentially irrelevant, and is still wrong according to parabolic bowl across a flat plane. And you do realize what kind of warping effects water has correct? This isn't an effect you are going to achieve with a Gas atmosphere, or light refraction in our atmosphere.. And in your hill effect, the distance to horizon wouldn't matter, it would still be greater than eye level, or always above your head.. And when you gain altitude there would be severe warping.. And you do realize that once the light source goes horizontal a "theoretical" parabolic effect over a flat plane would collapse entirely (ignoring the fact you can't achieve this over a flat plane).. Please don't compare light bending in liquid water to that of the atmosphere..
Why should anyone need to be at the bottom of a cup to see the effects of bent light.  You only have to look down into it to realize that the bottom appears higher than it is.  This can be seen in buckets of water or even swimming pools. 


Quote
Your argument is basically trying to change the vertex position from a parabolic bowl into a parabolic reflect position at the same time.. Hence you can not state the vertex position to be in both the following positions  over a flat plane..  Also, the Focus point is always higher than the vertex position regardless of distance. So the horizon would always be over the vertex position at the focal point. So no matter what, the FE argument is false! The horizon is not above our heads, we do not have to look up to see the horizon..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg/300px-Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Parabola_focus_directrix.svg/320px-Parabola_focus_directrix.svg.png

If you take Figure 2 and flip it upright,  the Focus point would be under the ground by several feet..This is not possible over a flat plane, much less an infinite flat plane. And it can not be done at any point along the surface of the plane... So you can not turn a flat plane into a parabolic reflect (dome)..

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You are either in the vertex position of a reflective dome, or parabolic bowl.
I'm not trying to change any points.  The vertex location is entirely dependant on the light path.  The observer does not necessarily exist at the vertex of light paths.  since light would be reaching the observer along concave parabolic curves, the ground would have to appear to bend the opposite way the light is bending: as a convex parabolic dome.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2010, 08:49:09 PM »
Firstly, nobody is at the bottom of a cup of water.. Your entire post here is essentially irrelevant, and is still wrong according to parabolic bowl across a flat plane. And you do realize what kind of warping effects water has correct? This isn't an effect you are going to achieve with a Gas atmosphere, or light refraction in our atmosphere.. And in your hill effect, the distance to horizon wouldn't matter, it would still be greater than eye level, or always above your head.. And when you gain altitude there would be severe warping.. And you do realize that once the light source goes horizontal a "theoretical" parabolic effect over a flat plane would collapse entirely (ignoring the fact you can't achieve this over a flat plane).. Please don't compare light bending in liquid water to that of the atmosphere..
Why should anyone need to be at the bottom of a cup to see the effects of bent light.  You only have to look down into it to realize that the bottom appears higher than it is.  This can be seen in buckets of water or even swimming pools. 


Quote
Your argument is basically trying to change the vertex position from a parabolic bowl into a parabolic reflect position at the same time.. Hence you can not state the vertex position to be in both the following positions  over a flat plane..  Also, the Focus point is always higher than the vertex position regardless of distance. So the horizon would always be over the vertex position at the focal point. So no matter what, the FE argument is false! The horizon is not above our heads, we do not have to look up to see the horizon..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg/300px-Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Parabola_focus_directrix.svg/320px-Parabola_focus_directrix.svg.png

If you take Figure 2 and flip it upright,  the Focus point would be under the ground by several feet..This is not possible over a flat plane, much less an infinite flat plane. And it can not be done at any point along the surface of the plane... So you can not turn a flat plane into a parabolic reflect (dome)..

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You are either in the vertex position of a reflective dome, or parabolic bowl.
I'm not trying to change any points.  The vertex location is entirely dependant on the light path.  The observer does not necessarily exist at the vertex of light paths.  since light would be reaching the observer along concave parabolic curves, the ground would have to appear to bend the opposite way the light is bending: as a convex parabolic dome.

This is false, you keep failing to realize that we are not in a "Glass of water!", or Looking at a "Glass of Water".. Nobody was arguing what bending light through a Glass of water would do. Your Diagram is actually a gross misrepresentation of information. This is not applicable to our Atmosphere, or Surface of the Earth! Hence,  What part about the fact that you are not in a glass of water, or looking through a "glass of water" do you not comprehend, or what fact about the atmosphere being a Gas and not a liquid do you not comprehend! I think this here is where you need to learn what particle physics is, because using a glass of water is irrelevant and dishonest discourse over a flat plane, or even in the case of RE.. Please stop posting irrelevant examples that are inherently incorrect LOL.. And yes, I am fully aware of the light path.

I would love to see you post an actual experiment over a flat surface with Mountain ranges, elevation, deformations and track the Light path, You will find that its not going to behave like a glass of water! Nor will it produce a parabolic dome!.. Seriously, when people post things they apparently don't comprehend or how it actually applies in terms of physics, the real world, or the actual subject of your theory  just makes me think "FACE PALM"

And you do realize that in your example the observer is above looking down at a cup of water, and into the cup of water, where as light across a flat plane is reflective across the surface of the water and diffusely scatters.. Hence, you can't compare a glass of water to that of the ocean kiddo, or how light travels across the surface of the earth.. It amazes me where you people come of with this crap and then magically think it's going to be applicable to how light works across a flat plane, or the surface of the Earth..

You Might want to understand this before you make "glass of water" arguments. And this is alone will collapse the entire FE theory..




Do you understand the laws of reflection and why the FE theory is incorrect? I would like you to please site me these laws, and how they are applied to different surfaces, surface shapes, surface properties, surface irregularities, angle of light, and the type of light source.. You clearly don't understand these laws to know why the surface of the earth is not going to behave like a glass of water in terms of bending light..

So I will say this for the Last time, stop using irrelevant diagrams.. And FE theory completely rides on having a specular reflection when that isn't going to happen.. Earth's surface isn't smooth son..


You also can not compare the bending of light around massive celestial bodies with super massive black holes in the vacuum of space.. Neither of those are applicable in terms to the subject, other than stating what a light path is ;)

« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 10:00:09 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2010, 02:53:51 AM »
If the earth is flat, and sunrises/sets can still occur without the sun ever actually crossing the plane of the earth, the only possible explanation is "bendy light."  Coincidentally, this bendy light would also make the earth look curved, and cause the "sinking ship" effect.



One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve, while on round earth, the curvature would be globular.  If this can be measured, then it would prove one of the theories.

Bent light was disproved months ago by Thermal Detonater.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2010, 02:54:20 AM »
No, it wasn't.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2010, 03:00:26 AM »
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2010, 03:02:36 AM »
No, it wasn't.

lol

Idiot.

please elaborate your case. appeal to authority, if TD can even be considered as such, is a fallacy.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2010, 03:16:40 AM »
No, it wasn't.

lol

Idiot.

please elaborate your case. appeal to authority, if TD can even be considered as such, is a fallacy.

learn2fallacy, it's not an appeal to authority. He is not arguing that the staement is correct because TD said it was, he is arguing that a correct statement was made. By whom it was made is really quite irellevant, but it is handy for people to know when trying to search for the afforementioned statement.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2010, 03:18:01 AM »
he is arguing that a correct statement was made.

And I was arguing that an incorrect statement had been made, after which he called me an idiot.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #75 on: July 18, 2010, 03:22:43 AM »
he is arguing that a correct statement was made.

And I was arguing that an incorrect statement had been made, after which he called me an idiot.

lol

Idiot again.

I cant find the thread with it in but its been reposted lots of times so Im sure someone can find it. Parsic saying it never happened doesnt mean it never happened.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #76 on: July 18, 2010, 03:24:40 AM »
he is arguing that a correct statement was made.

And I was arguing that an incorrect statement had been made, after which he called me an idiot.

lol

Idiot again.

I cant find the thread with it in but its been reposted lots of times so Im sure someone can find it. Parsic saying it never happened doesnt mean it never happened.
This is Goebels' tactic. A thousand times repeated lie becomes a truth. I never said it never happened, I said it did not constitute a rebuttal of the BLT.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #77 on: July 18, 2010, 03:28:26 AM »
he is arguing that a correct statement was made.

And I was arguing that an incorrect statement had been made, after which he called me an idiot.

Well to be fair you ARE falsely accusing him of using fallacies, so I can see where he is coming from.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 03:38:49 AM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #78 on: July 18, 2010, 03:33:19 AM »
he is arguing that a correct statement was made.

And I was arguing that an incorrect statement had been made, after which he called me an idiot.

Well to be fair you ARE using wrong fallacies, so I can see where he is coming from.

How can one use the wrong fallacies? All fallacies are wrong. But, I was not using any.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #79 on: July 18, 2010, 03:38:02 AM »
he is arguing that a correct statement was made.

And I was arguing that an incorrect statement had been made, after which he called me an idiot.

Well to be fair you ARE using wrong fallacies, so I can see where he is coming from.

How can one use the wrong fallacies? All fallacies are wrong. But, I was not using any.

You were saying he used the appeal to authority fallacy, he did not, thus you are wrong. I shall however reitterate my post as I can see how that was confusing.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #80 on: July 18, 2010, 03:41:48 AM »
TD's posts are not "peer-reviewed", therefore, a simple reference of them is an appeal of authority. The fallacy is so obvious, since TD is no authority at all.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #81 on: July 18, 2010, 03:52:32 AM »
TD's posts are not "peer-reviewed", therefore, a simple reference of them is an appeal of authority. The fallacy is so obvious, since TD is no authority at all.

Wrong, if TD's arguments are sound he can refer to them. You don't seem to know what appeal to authority is. Let me explain, an appeal to authority is when you claim something is correct because somebody claimed it was so. To give an example:

"G.W Bush says that vitamins are bad for me, because he is G.W. Bush this statement is correct!"

This is not the same as what skeleton did, as he only pointed out that it was disproved by TD, he did not say it was correct because TD made the statement. All skeleton did was point out that TD made the statement. It is not the same thing.

Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #82 on: July 18, 2010, 03:55:44 AM »
Also, using the BLT is rather bad as even parsifal (a BLT specialist) admitted to not having any evidence that supports the exsistence of BL.
In other words it is just as likely that Dumbledore is the cause of the sinking ship as it is BL.

From:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39437.40

Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?

No.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #83 on: July 18, 2010, 04:00:54 AM »
TD's posts are not "peer-reviewed", therefore, a simple reference of them is an appeal of authority. The fallacy is so obvious, since TD is no authority at all.

Wrong, if TD's arguments are sound he can refer to them. You don't seem to know what appeal to authority is.
But, they are not, so he cannot.

Let me explain, an appeal to authority is when you claim something is correct because somebody claimed it was so. To give an example:

"G.W Bush says that vitamins are bad for me, because he is G.W. Bush this statement is correct!"
This is a badly chosen example at best. If W had ever said that, I would most likely not be taking any vitamins.

This is not the same as what skeleton did, as he only pointed out that it was disproved by TD, he did not say it was correct because TD made the statement. All skeleton did was point out that TD made the statement. It is not the same thing.
True, and that is why I did not initially say it was appeal to authority. I simply contested his claim that TD had disproven anything. Only after he resorted to personal attacks did I challenge him to present the case in favor of TD's claims or face the fallacy he was making by appealing to someone's post without any support for their argument.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #84 on: July 18, 2010, 04:02:42 AM »
Also, using the BLT is rather bad as even parsifal (a BLT specialist) admitted to not having any evidence that supports the exsistence of BL.
In other words it is just as likely that Dumbledore is the cause of the sinking ship as it is BL.

From:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39437.40

Do you have any evidence that bendy light exists?

No.

hence, the word theory.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #85 on: July 18, 2010, 04:06:24 AM »
Quote
But, they are not, so he cannot.

Doesn't change the fact that you falsely accused him of using a fallacy

Quote
This is a badly chosen example at best. If W had ever said that, I would most likely not be taking any vitamins.

I just hope you're being funny.

Quote
True, and that is why I did not initially say it was appeal to authority. I simply contested his claim that TD had disproven anything. Only after he resorted to personal attacks did I challenge him to present the case in favor of TD's claims or face the fallacy he was making by appealing to someone's post without any support for their argument.

See the top most quote.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #86 on: July 18, 2010, 04:09:24 AM »
Quote
But, they are not, so he cannot.

Doesn't change the fact that you falsely accused him of using a fallacy

Quote
This is a badly chosen example at best. If W had ever said that, I would most likely not be taking any vitamins.

I just hope you're being funny.

Quote
True, and that is why I did not initially say it was appeal to authority. I simply contested his claim that TD had disproven anything. Only after he resorted to personal attacks did I challenge him to present the case in favor of TD's claims or face the fallacy he was making by appealing to someone's post without any support for their argument.

See the top most quote.

I will not respond to you anymore. TD is not the kind of user who deserves this much of my attention. If you have something constructive to add to the debate, I eagerly await your post. Otherwise, I think I have made my point clear and any further involvement in your attempts to extract a non-existent admission from me will remain unanswered.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #87 on: July 18, 2010, 04:11:24 AM »
Quote
hence, the word theory.

Still bad to drag along a theory without any foundation. As I said, me saying it is Dumbledore causing the observed effect is just as likely.

The following shows why it is a very bad theory:

Quote
Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic.

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as "He is a terrible person" cannot be judged to be true or false without reference to some interpretation of who "He" is and for that matter what a "terrible person" is under the theory. [5]
From wiki
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #88 on: July 18, 2010, 04:13:47 AM »
Quote
But, they are not, so he cannot.

Doesn't change the fact that you falsely accused him of using a fallacy

Quote
This is a badly chosen example at best. If W had ever said that, I would most likely not be taking any vitamins.

I just hope you're being funny.

Quote
True, and that is why I did not initially say it was appeal to authority. I simply contested his claim that TD had disproven anything. Only after he resorted to personal attacks did I challenge him to present the case in favor of TD's claims or face the fallacy he was making by appealing to someone's post without any support for their argument.

See the top most quote.

I will not respond to you anymore. TD is not the kind of user who deserves this much of my attention. If you have something constructive to add to the debate, I eagerly await your post. Otherwise, I think I have made my point clear and any further involvement in your attempts to extract a non-existent admission from me will remain unanswered.

Insults rather than admitting you were wrong in accusing him of using fallacies. Furthermore this site is meant for debate, ignoring people is generally the best way to ruin your own credibility, but that is up to you ofcourse.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2010, 11:21:27 AM »
Firstly, nobody is at the bottom of a cup of water.. Your entire post here is essentially irrelevant, and is still wrong according to parabolic bowl across a flat plane. And you do realize what kind of warping effects water has correct? This isn't an effect you are going to achieve with a Gas atmosphere, or light refraction in our atmosphere.. And in your hill effect, the distance to horizon wouldn't matter, it would still be greater than eye level, or always above your head.. And when you gain altitude there would be severe warping.. And you do realize that once the light source goes horizontal a "theoretical" parabolic effect over a flat plane would collapse entirely (ignoring the fact you can't achieve this over a flat plane).. Please don't compare light bending in liquid water to that of the atmosphere..
Why should anyone need to be at the bottom of a cup to see the effects of bent light.  You only have to look down into it to realize that the bottom appears higher than it is.  This can be seen in buckets of water or even swimming pools. 


Quote
Your argument is basically trying to change the vertex position from a parabolic bowl into a parabolic reflect position at the same time.. Hence you can not state the vertex position to be in both the following positions  over a flat plane..  Also, the Focus point is always higher than the vertex position regardless of distance. So the horizon would always be over the vertex position at the focal point. So no matter what, the FE argument is false! The horizon is not above our heads, we do not have to look up to see the horizon..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg/300px-Parabola_with_focus_and_arbitrary_line.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Parabola_focus_directrix.svg/320px-Parabola_focus_directrix.svg.png

If you take Figure 2 and flip it upright,  the Focus point would be under the ground by several feet..This is not possible over a flat plane, much less an infinite flat plane. And it can not be done at any point along the surface of the plane... So you can not turn a flat plane into a parabolic reflect (dome)..

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too here. You are either in the vertex position of a reflective dome, or parabolic bowl.
I'm not trying to change any points.  The vertex location is entirely dependant on the light path.  The observer does not necessarily exist at the vertex of light paths.  since light would be reaching the observer along concave parabolic curves, the ground would have to appear to bend the opposite way the light is bending: as a convex parabolic dome.

This is false, you keep failing to realize that we are not in a "Glass of water!", or Looking at a "Glass of Water".. Nobody was arguing what bending light through a Glass of water would do. Your Diagram is actually a gross misrepresentation of information. This is not applicable to our Atmosphere, or Surface of the Earth! Hence,  What part about the fact that you are not in a glass of water, or looking through a "glass of water" do you not comprehend, or what fact about the atmosphere being a Gas and not a liquid do you not comprehend! I think this here is where you need to learn what particle physics is, because using a glass of water is irrelevant and dishonest discourse over a flat plane, or even in the case of RE.. Please stop posting irrelevant examples that are inherently incorrect LOL.. And yes, I am fully aware of the light path.

I would love to see you post an actual experiment over a flat surface with Mountain ranges, elevation, deformations and track the Light path, You will find that its not going to behave like a glass of water! Nor will it produce a parabolic dome!.. Seriously, when people post things they apparently don't comprehend or how it actually applies in terms of physics, the real world, or the actual subject of your theory  just makes me think "FACE PALM"

And you do realize that in your example the observer is above looking down at a cup of water, and into the cup of water, where as light across a flat plane is reflective across the surface of the water and diffusely scatters.. Hence, you can't compare a glass of water to that of the ocean kiddo, or how light travels across the surface of the earth.. It amazes me where you people come of with this crap and then magically think it's going to be applicable to how light works across a flat plane, or the surface of the Earth..

You Might want to understand this before you make "glass of water" arguments. And this is alone will collapse the entire FE theory..




Do you understand the laws of reflection and why the FE theory is incorrect? I would like you to please site me these laws, and how they are applied to different surfaces, surface shapes, surface properties, surface irregularities, angle of light, and the type of light source.. You clearly don't understand these laws to know why the surface of the earth is not going to behave like a glass of water in terms of bending light..

So I will say this for the Last time, stop using irrelevant diagrams.. And FE theory completely rides on having a specular reflection when that isn't going to happen.. Earth's surface isn't smooth son..


You also can not compare the bending of light around massive celestial bodies with super massive black holes in the vacuum of space.. Neither of those are applicable in terms to the subject, other than stating what a light path is ;)



Come ON!  It's a simple matter of light bends -> image distorts.  You clearly do not understand how vision works, nor did you understand my diagram.  Especially the part about Electromagnetic Acceleration.  It clearly demonstrates how bending light will affect what the observer sees.

Quote
parabolic bowl across a flat plane.
Why do you keep saying this?  It has nothing to do with what I'm trying to explain.  There is no parabolic bowl!  The flat earth due to a bending of light upwards will appear lower than it really is.  How hard is this to understand?  You don't need to go into laws of reflection to understand my message.  And if the light is bending parabolically, the earth will appear to curve away parabolically in the opposite direction.  End of discussion!  Further straw man attacks will be ignored.  I have allowed myself to be trolled by you for far too long.

@ Skeleton.  My point with the bendy light diagram is to show that Flat Earthers can't claim that the earth appears flat, regardless of what theory is right, since neither RET, nor FET permit the earth to appear flat.  I am not trying to disprove one or the other, but just to point out this detail.