Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective

  • 124 Replies
  • 12543 Views
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #90 on: July 18, 2010, 08:37:05 PM »
No, it wasn't.

It was, and is now disproved, and the only authority here are the facts.. FE theory on bendy light is for the better of the word "laughable" if not a bad attempt to phish for ignorant people that don't know anything about the subject or the science and physics behind it all..

When I look at the examples (diagrams, and illustrations) given such as the cartoon illustrations posted here, it's clear that the people who came up with this FE theory have no understanding of the physics, or why the FE theory is completely wrong. Every argument put forth thus far for FE has been completely inconsistent, inaccurate as hell, dishonest, false, a pile of misinformation, and sheer ignorance of the entire subject. If in fact it's clearly illustrated to actually fool unknowing people into the ideological construct at best. Pathetic would be a polite way of describing the crap I've seen posted here over the last few days.

HENCE, THEY ARE DOING IT WRONG!!

Things noted in this discussion:

Earth isn't flat or smooth (this makes specular reflection impossible, and parabolic dome impossible)
The Atmosphere is not liquid water
The Atmosphere is not a vacuum
Light on Earth is predominately Diffuse and not specular! (though at times water can be calm enough to have specular reflection)
Light doesn't bend or travel through gas like it does through liquids, or a vacuum..
Moving goal post arguments is dishonest
Using inconsistent and highly inaccurate illustrations is dishonest manipulation of information

The FE theory is such a complete mess, and it shows that they just like to use scientific terminology as a means to support their position without even understanding wtf they are talking about. :/

Quote
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.

You are clearly not educated enough to understand why you are wrong.. No duh light "can bend".. Your problems is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "how, and why" light can bend, and under what circumstances does that occur, or how that is applied to the real world.. Your diagram was a complete joke, and completely irrelevant.. This clearly tells me that you do not know the physics.. Once you educate yourself on the physics of why your Diagrams are completely wrong when it comes to how we see and view the surface of the Earth, you can then come back here and provide me with an honest discussion...

Posting "you didn't understand your diagram" is a pleading attempt to save your self and give magical validity to your argument to which does not exist. Hence, I understood the diagram completely, and without much effort I have pointed out why your diagram is not only a false example, but a dishonest example to which is completely inaccurate!  Don't lecture me on not understanding your Diagram, this little circular game will not work on me son. You have shown your inability to understand the physics, and why FE theory is utterly wrong!





« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 08:52:20 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #91 on: July 18, 2010, 09:29:30 PM »
No, it wasn't.

It was, and is now disproved, and the only authority here are the facts.. FE theory on bendy light is for the better of the word "laughable" if not a bad attempt to phish for ignorant people that don't know anything about the subject or the science and physics behind it all..

When I look at the examples (diagrams, and illustrations) given such as the cartoon illustrations posted here, it's clear that the people who came up with this FE theory have no understanding of the physics, or why the FE theory is completely wrong. Every argument put forth thus far for FE has been completely inconsistent, inaccurate as hell, dishonest, false, a pile of misinformation, and sheer ignorance of the entire subject. If in fact it's clearly illustrated to actually fool unknowing people into the ideological construct at best. Pathetic would be a polite way of describing the crap I've seen posted here over the last few days.

HENCE, THEY ARE DOING IT WRONG!!

Things noted in this discussion:

Earth isn't flat or smooth (this makes specular reflection impossible, and parabolic dome impossible)
The Atmosphere is not liquid water
The Atmosphere is not a vacuum
Light on Earth is predominately Diffuse and not specular! (though at times water can be calm enough to have specular reflection)
Light doesn't bend or travel through gas like it does through liquids, or a vacuum..
Moving goal post arguments is dishonest
Using inconsistent and highly inaccurate illustrations is dishonest manipulation of information

The FE theory is such a complete mess, and it shows that they just like to use scientific terminology as a means to support their position without even understanding wtf they are talking about. :/

Quote
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.

You are clearly not educated enough to understand why you are wrong.. No duh light "can bend".. Your problems is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "how, and why" light can bend, and under what circumstances does that occur, or how that is applied to the real world.. Your diagram was a complete joke, and completely irrelevant.. This clearly tells me that you do not know the physics.. Once you educate yourself on the physics of why your Diagrams are completely wrong when it comes to how we see and view the surface of the Earth, you can then come back here and provide me with an honest discussion...

Posting "you didn't understand your diagram" is a pleading attempt to save your self and give magical validity to your argument to which does not exist. Hence, I understood the diagram completely, and without much effort I have pointed out why your diagram is not only a false example, but a dishonest example to which is completely inaccurate!  Don't lecture me on not understanding your Diagram, this little circular game will not work on me son. You have shown your inability to understand the physics, and why FE theory is utterly wrong!







You kinda just showed how stupid you are. If i recall right Nolhekh is an RE'r. You went through all that trouble to disprove an RE'r. (Lurked a bit moar and found hes just being neutral, which im good with). And your post was really annoying to read because you didn't disprove his diagram at all, you just said he didn't know physics and then later explained how you disproved his diagram. Please explain specific inaccuracies about his diagrams.

It looks like his diagram with the water was to show "how" light can bend and the diagram with what seems to be gravity bending the light to show "why" it bends. Please, stop trying to sounds smart for everybody. Its basic physics to understand that you can see a star behind the sun because the sun's gravity pulls the light in toward it allowing us to see it on earth, giving us a distorted image of what is actually there. You don't have to apply his diagrams for the surface of the earth when the diagrams don't illustrate the surface of the earth in the first place.

Please focus upon the final diagram illustrating the FE belief rather than trying to prey upon Nolhekh's intelligence with the other two diagrams.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 09:39:51 PM by AdmiralAckbar »

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #92 on: July 18, 2010, 11:35:07 PM »
No, it wasn't.

It was, and is now disproved, and the only authority here are the facts.. FE theory on bendy light is for the better of the word "laughable" if not a bad attempt to phish for ignorant people that don't know anything about the subject or the science and physics behind it all..

When I look at the examples (diagrams, and illustrations) given such as the cartoon illustrations posted here, it's clear that the people who came up with this FE theory have no understanding of the physics, or why the FE theory is completely wrong. Every argument put forth thus far for FE has been completely inconsistent, inaccurate as hell, dishonest, false, a pile of misinformation, and sheer ignorance of the entire subject. If in fact it's clearly illustrated to actually fool unknowing people into the ideological construct at best. Pathetic would be a polite way of describing the crap I've seen posted here over the last few days.

HENCE, THEY ARE DOING IT WRONG!!

Things noted in this discussion:

Earth isn't flat or smooth (this makes specular reflection impossible, and parabolic dome impossible)
The Atmosphere is not liquid water
The Atmosphere is not a vacuum
Light on Earth is predominately Diffuse and not specular! (though at times water can be calm enough to have specular reflection)
Light doesn't bend or travel through gas like it does through liquids, or a vacuum..
Moving goal post arguments is dishonest
Using inconsistent and highly inaccurate illustrations is dishonest manipulation of information

The FE theory is such a complete mess, and it shows that they just like to use scientific terminology as a means to support their position without even understanding wtf they are talking about. :/

Quote
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.

You are clearly not educated enough to understand why you are wrong.. No duh light "can bend".. Your problems is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "how, and why" light can bend, and under what circumstances does that occur, or how that is applied to the real world.. Your diagram was a complete joke, and completely irrelevant.. This clearly tells me that you do not know the physics.. Once you educate yourself on the physics of why your Diagrams are completely wrong when it comes to how we see and view the surface of the Earth, you can then come back here and provide me with an honest discussion...

Posting "you didn't understand your diagram" is a pleading attempt to save your self and give magical validity to your argument to which does not exist. Hence, I understood the diagram completely, and without much effort I have pointed out why your diagram is not only a false example, but a dishonest example to which is completely inaccurate!  Don't lecture me on not understanding your Diagram, this little circular game will not work on me son. You have shown your inability to understand the physics, and why FE theory is utterly wrong!







You kinda just showed how stupid you are. If i recall right Nolhekh is an RE'r. You went through all that trouble to disprove an RE'r. (Lurked a bit moar and found hes just being neutral, which im good with). And your post was really annoying to read because you didn't disprove his diagram at all, you just said he didn't know physics and then later explained how you disproved his diagram. Please explain specific inaccuracies about his diagrams.

It looks like his diagram with the water was to show "how" light can bend and the diagram with what seems to be gravity bending the light to show "why" it bends. Please, stop trying to sounds smart for everybody. Its basic physics to understand that you can see a star behind the sun because the sun's gravity pulls the light in toward it allowing us to see it on earth, giving us a distorted image of what is actually there. You don't have to apply his diagrams for the surface of the earth when the diagrams don't illustrate the surface of the earth in the first place.

Please focus upon the final diagram illustrating the FE belief rather than trying to prey upon Nolhekh's intelligence with the other two diagrams.

First off I am aware he's an RE.. Secondly I did explain why his diagrams are incorrect, feel free to establish reading comprehension, I clearly stated why his diagrams are incorrect in regards to FE theory and the surface of the Earth. This had nothing to do with establishing that light can "bend". If you need a clearer picture as to why this is, look at his first illustration and then look at my last illustration.. You are not going to get a parabolic dome over a FE, especially when the surface of the earth scatters and diffuses light. It's not as simple as saying Light bends, because it also reflects or becomes diffuse.. Light is not going to bend as the FE claims it would.. so lets run through this..

1) if the light in FE theory bends as to say these two objects on the same plane can't see each other.. 

(0) = Objects / observers
( _ ) = ground

0________________________________0

So we can ask how is light bending to where these two objects can't see each other.

1) Well, there would be a Wave between the two objects where each object is in a parabolic Bowl at the vertex position.. This wave would be a Parabolic Dome to where the top of this dome would equal the horizon.. This means that the focal point would be above their heads! And this is the first reason why the FE theory is false.. Thus according to FE the greater the distance the higher the wave is between the two observer objects.. Hence even if they climbed up a tree they wouldn't be able to see each other..

2) We add 2 more Objects or Observers:

0_________0___________0___________0

Now if we add the bend (wave) between all these objects, we get a parabolic wave pattern to where every observer is in a parabolic bowl because none of these Objects could see each other according to FE theory... So here FE is trying to state that it's a bending wavelength across a flat surface where every observer is in a parabolic bowl..

3) We add reflection, and diffusion..

0______<MW|___^_____~~~~~~~~~~_____0

When you try to have a parabolic wave length it collapses do to light reflecting and diffusing across the surface.. You can call this a collapse of wave function. Hence there would be severe warping and distortion going to which would easily be noticeable as the source of light we call the sun moves from east to west, and rises and sets on the horizon...

This isn't what we are seeing here on Earth correct ;)

 

And I wasn't disproving and RE'r, I was disproving FE theory .
 

« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 11:42:09 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #93 on: July 18, 2010, 11:43:22 PM »
No, it wasn't.

It was, and is now disproved, and the only authority here are the facts.. FE theory on bendy light is for the better of the word "laughable" if not a bad attempt to phish for ignorant people that don't know anything about the subject or the science and physics behind it all..

When I look at the examples (diagrams, and illustrations) given such as the cartoon illustrations posted here, it's clear that the people who came up with this FE theory have no understanding of the physics, or why the FE theory is completely wrong. Every argument put forth thus far for FE has been completely inconsistent, inaccurate as hell, dishonest, false, a pile of misinformation, and sheer ignorance of the entire subject. If in fact it's clearly illustrated to actually fool unknowing people into the ideological construct at best. Pathetic would be a polite way of describing the crap I've seen posted here over the last few days.

HENCE, THEY ARE DOING IT WRONG!!

Things noted in this discussion:

Earth isn't flat or smooth (this makes specular reflection impossible, and parabolic dome impossible)
The Atmosphere is not liquid water
The Atmosphere is not a vacuum
Light on Earth is predominately Diffuse and not specular! (though at times water can be calm enough to have specular reflection)
Light doesn't bend or travel through gas like it does through liquids, or a vacuum..
Moving goal post arguments is dishonest
Using inconsistent and highly inaccurate illustrations is dishonest manipulation of information

The FE theory is such a complete mess, and it shows that they just like to use scientific terminology as a means to support their position without even understanding wtf they are talking about. :/

Quote
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.

You are clearly not educated enough to understand why you are wrong.. No duh light "can bend".. Your problems is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to "how, and why" light can bend, and under what circumstances does that occur, or how that is applied to the real world.. Your diagram was a complete joke, and completely irrelevant.. This clearly tells me that you do not know the physics.. Once you educate yourself on the physics of why your Diagrams are completely wrong when it comes to how we see and view the surface of the Earth, you can then come back here and provide me with an honest discussion...

Posting "you didn't understand your diagram" is a pleading attempt to save your self and give magical validity to your argument to which does not exist. Hence, I understood the diagram completely, and without much effort I have pointed out why your diagram is not only a false example, but a dishonest example to which is completely inaccurate!  Don't lecture me on not understanding your Diagram, this little circular game will not work on me son. You have shown your inability to understand the physics, and why FE theory is utterly wrong!







You kinda just showed how stupid you are. If i recall right Nolhekh is an RE'r. You went through all that trouble to disprove an RE'r. (Lurked a bit moar and found hes just being neutral, which im good with). And your post was really annoying to read because you didn't disprove his diagram at all, you just said he didn't know physics and then later explained how you disproved his diagram. Please explain specific inaccuracies about his diagrams.

It looks like his diagram with the water was to show "how" light can bend and the diagram with what seems to be gravity bending the light to show "why" it bends. Please, stop trying to sounds smart for everybody. Its basic physics to understand that you can see a star behind the sun because the sun's gravity pulls the light in toward it allowing us to see it on earth, giving us a distorted image of what is actually there. You don't have to apply his diagrams for the surface of the earth when the diagrams don't illustrate the surface of the earth in the first place.

Please focus upon the final diagram illustrating the FE belief rather than trying to prey upon Nolhekh's intelligence with the other two diagrams.

First off I am aware he's an RE.. Secondly I did explain why his diagrams are incorrect, feel free to establish reading comprehension, I clearly stated why his diagrams are incorrect in regards to FE theory and the surface of the Earth. This had nothing to do with establishing that light can "bend". If you need a clearer picture as to why this is, look at his first illustration and then look at my last illustration.. You are not going to get a parabolic dome over a FE, especially when the surface of the earth scatters and diffuses light. It's not as simple as saying Light bends, because it also reflects or becomes diffuse.. Light is not going to bend as the FE claims it would.. so lets run through this..

1) if the light in FE theory bends as to say these two objects on the same plane can't see each other..  

(0) = Objects
( _ ) = ground

0________________________________0

So we can ask how is light bending to where these two objects can't see each other.

1) Well, there would be a Wave between the two objects where each object is in a parabolic Bowl at the vertex position.. This wave would be a Parabolic Dome to where the top of this dome would equal the horizon.. This means that the focal point would be above their heads! And this is the first reason why the FE theory is false.. Thus according to FE the greater the distance the higher the wave is between the two observer objects.. Hence even if they climbed up a tree they wouldn't be able to see each other..

2) We add 2 more Objects or Observers:

0_________0___________0___________0

Now if we add the bend (wave) between all these objects, we get a parabolic wave pattern to where every observer is in a parabolic bowl because none of these Objects could see each other according to FE theory... So here FE is trying to state that it's a bending wavelength across a flat surface where every observer is in a parabolic bowl..

3) We add reflection, and diffusion..

0______<MW|___^_____~~~~~~~~~~_____0

When you try to have a parabolic wave length it collapses do to light reflecting and diffusing across the surface.. You can call this a collapse of wave function. Hence there would be severe warping and distortion going to which would easily be noticeable as the source of light we call the sun moves from east to west, and rises and sets on the horizon...

This isn't what we are seeing here on Earth correct ;)

 


 



Yes because he was obviously using the glass example to explain how it works on Earth, please establish critical thinking skills.
I understand and agree with what your saying about FE, but to improve on how you do this
A) stop insulting people's intelligence, it just makes you look dumb
B) Calm down with calling FE wrong every 10 seconds, we know it, they know it, no need to go crazy about it. Use it as a closer.

You didn't explain how the diagrams themselves are incorrect, but only stated how they are wrong physically with no elaboration? They are right physically, just not when trying to use that logic with the surface of a flat earth, which is not what was trying to be done.

And because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull. Not everytime someone in this thread uses the term "light bending" are they talking about how it would work in reference to a flat earth surface. I agree light bending on the earth surface as to how FE says it would is bogus bullcrap, but for you to continually bring it up when its not being mentioned is very annoying and is taking away from the mathematics and science your trying to address in your post.

Chill out, this isn't a contest. Thank you for your contributions against FE.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #94 on: July 18, 2010, 11:55:21 PM »
Let's consider waiting until FET explains to us what EA, a. k. a. "bendy light", is and how it explains the observations that FEers have either denied (A telescope restores the hull of the ship moving over the horizon.) or explained away ("Big waves" or vanishing point makes objects disappear from the bottom up.). Until then, isn't just a waste of time, or at least more so than usual?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #95 on: July 19, 2010, 04:00:17 AM »
Let's consider waiting until FET explains to us what EA, a. k. a. "bendy light", is and how it explains the observations that FEers have either denied (A telescope restores the hull of the ship moving over the horizon.) or explained away ("Big waves" or vanishing point makes objects disappear from the bottom up.). Until then, isn't just a waste of time, or at least more so than usual?

Bendy light is the equivalent of convenience light, as even the leading bendy light specialist Parsifal has admitted to not having evidence for it's exsistence or having any idea how the mechanism might work.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 08:20:52 AM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #96 on: July 19, 2010, 06:41:33 AM »
Quote
Yes because he was obviously using the glass example to explain how it works on Earth, please establish critical thinking skills.
I understand and agree with what your saying about FE, but to improve on how you do this
A) stop insulting people's intelligence, it just makes you look dumb
B) Calm down with calling FE wrong every 10 seconds, we know it, they know it, no need to go crazy about it. Use it as a closer.

You didn't explain how the diagrams themselves are incorrect, but only stated how they are wrong physically with no elaboration? They are right physically, just not when trying to use that logic with the surface of a flat earth, which is not what was trying to be done.

And because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull. Not everytime someone in this thread uses the term "light bending" are they talking about how it would work in reference to a flat earth surface. I agree light bending on the earth surface as to how FE says it would is bogus bullcrap, but for you to continually bring it up when its not being mentioned is very annoying and is taking away from the mathematics and science your trying to address in your post.

Chill out, this isn't a contest. Thank you for your contributions against FE.

1) I didn't say his diagrams were wrong in the sense that light bends or how it can be made to bend.. Heat waves can bend the light too,,
2) I stated they are wrong according to how we see the curvature of the Earth. This is where it pays for you to have reading comprehension on what the subject is pertaining to! 
3) I clearly explained why his diagrams are wrong according to the subject, and why they do not pertain to the curvature of the Earth other than stating that light can bend..
4) Telling me that light can bend doesn't establish anything when he doesn't illustrate how FE would actually work
5) What proves his argument  wrong is as I explained before:

Over a Flat surface the observer can not be at the top of a parabolic dome when the FE theory states that they are in a parabolic bowl.. This means that the top of the Dome is at the horizon. And in FE theory they would have to look up to see the horizon where as in RE they don't.. This is why I stated that he can not state that the vertex position can magically be in the reflect position at the top of the dome at the same time.. Yes, you can do this looking into a glass of water, but not across the surface of the ocean due to reflections and diffusion of light cause by waves and light bouncing off the surface, or due to light diffusion across a rough surface like land, mountains ect.

So it wasn't me that was having a problem staying on subject here, going off telling me light can bend did nothing in regards to establishing FE and the curvature of the Earth.. It's like nobody pays attention and then goes on a tangent of irrelevant diagrams, and illustrations to which all were completely inaccurate to the subject..Hence, I understood what bending light is,  and I don't need a diagram to show how light can bend.  If he wanted to do something useful, he should have illustrated how you can be on top of a parabolic dome over a flat Earth surface.. So the easy answer is that you can't.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #97 on: July 19, 2010, 09:05:14 AM »
Quote
Yes because he was obviously using the glass example to explain how it works on Earth, please establish critical thinking skills.
I understand and agree with what your saying about FE, but to improve on how you do this
A) stop insulting people's intelligence, it just makes you look dumb
B) Calm down with calling FE wrong every 10 seconds, we know it, they know it, no need to go crazy about it. Use it as a closer.

You didn't explain how the diagrams themselves are incorrect, but only stated how they are wrong physically with no elaboration? They are right physically, just not when trying to use that logic with the surface of a flat earth, which is not what was trying to be done.

And because you can't seem to get it through your thick skull. Not everytime someone in this thread uses the term "light bending" are they talking about how it would work in reference to a flat earth surface. I agree light bending on the earth surface as to how FE says it would is bogus bullcrap, but for you to continually bring it up when its not being mentioned is very annoying and is taking away from the mathematics and science your trying to address in your post.

Chill out, this isn't a contest. Thank you for your contributions against FE.

1) I didn't say his diagrams were wrong in the sense that light bends or how it can be made to bend.. Heat waves can bend the light too,,
2) I stated they are wrong according to how we see the curvature of the Earth. This is where it pays for you to have reading comprehension on what the subject is pertaining to! 
3) I clearly explained why his diagrams are wrong according to the subject, and why they do not pertain to the curvature of the Earth other than stating that light can bend..
4) Telling me that light can bend doesn't establish anything when he doesn't illustrate how FE would actually work
5) What proves his argument  wrong is as I explained before:

Over a Flat surface the observer can not be at the top of a parabolic dome when the FE theory states that they are in a parabolic bowl.. This means that the top of the Dome is at the horizon. And in FE theory they would have to look up to see the horizon where as in RE they don't.. This is why I stated that he can not state that the vertex position can magically be in the reflect position at the top of the dome at the same time.. Yes, you can do this looking into a glass of water, but not across the surface of the ocean due to reflections and diffusion of light cause by waves and light bouncing off the surface, or due to light diffusion across a rough surface like land, mountains ect.

So it wasn't me that was having a problem staying on subject here, going off telling me light can bend did nothing in regards to establishing FE and the curvature of the Earth.. It's like nobody pays attention and then goes on a tangent of irrelevant diagrams, and illustrations to which all were completely inaccurate to the subject..Hence, I understood what bending light is,  and I don't need a diagram to show how light can bend.  If he wanted to do something useful, he should have illustrated how you can be on top of a parabolic dome over a flat Earth surface.. So the easy answer is that you can't.


You know how usually things get built up? You don't just THROW all your evidence pertaining to the subject at once, you build it up. If you actually re-read Nolhekh's post, you'll see he was making the point that light CAN bend, then he showed WHY it can bend, then with the final diagram he was showing how using the ideas of HOW and WHY, FE'rs believe that light CAN bend in general. We all disagree on this point, but he was building up the properties of light and how they react in certain situations.

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. 

He's talking about the effects of bent light in general. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding.

So please, learn to read people's posts more accurately instead of jumping up and down like a child trying to spew out every thought that comes into your head.

I will say again, Chill out. I agree about the dome crap, I don't need a science lecture in every single one of your posts, Argue with your evidence with an FE'r, not me.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #98 on: July 19, 2010, 07:59:24 PM »
Quote
He's talking about the effects of bent light in general. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding.

If you re-read from the beginning, this subject has always been in reference to his original post and illustration, and the curvature of the Earth according to FE.. If he derailed without specifying I can only assume that he was still on topic. Seriously, do you think he thought that I didn't know that light could bend, or that I needed it to be explained to me? No, and I didn't think he would have thought that I would need to be taught that light can be made to bend.. Perhaps he mistook my comment about the bendy light theory in FE being false as saying bending light is false? ... What this shows is that we were obviously not on the same page in terms of the subject of discussion. So when I see him posting a diagram on a glass of water and bending light, all I could think of is how irrelevant that was to the discussion in regards to the curvature of the earth, or FE theory that tries to explain it as a parabolic bowl over a flat surface. He may as well have shown a prism example too because that would also equally not add anything to the debate..

Quote
So please, learn to read people's posts more accurately instead of jumping up and down like a child trying to spew out every thought that comes into your head.

I will work on being nicer, but when I read peoples posts in a debate, I naturally put them into context according to the subject of debate.. Seriously, what did he think I was debating in regards to FE theory and his first illustration, and his second illustration?? Was I the only one still talking about the curvature of the earth?


Quote
I will say again, Chill out. I agree about the dome crap, I don't need a science lecture in every single one of your posts, Argue with your evidence with an FE'r, not me.

Some people do, and I feel when I see a false illustration like the one posted at the beginning of this debate, that I should respond.. You may not require it, nor may many others.. However, I didn't post an argument or debate for people like you, me, or someone else that already understands these things, and there is nothing wrong with going into a scientific debate.. If you don't like science lectures, then don't read them sir, you do have a choice in the matter :)



 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2010, 12:30:39 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #99 on: July 19, 2010, 10:37:02 PM »
Quote
He's talking about the effects of bent light in general. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding.

If you re-read from the beginning, this subject has always been in reference to his original post and illustration, and the curvature of the Earth according to FE.. If he derailed without specifying I can only assume that he was still on topic. Seriously, do you think he thought that I didn't know that light could bend, or that I needed it to be explained to me? No, and I didn't think he would have thought that I would need to be taught that light can be made to bend.. Perhaps he mistaken my comment about the bendy light theory in FE being false as saying bending light is false? ... What this shows is that we were obviously not on the same page in terms of the subject of discussion. So when I see him posting a diagram on a glass of water and bending light, all I could think of is how irrelevant that was to the discussion in regards to the curvature of the earth, or FE theory that tries to explain it as a parabolic bowl over a flat surface. He may as well have shown a prism example too because that would also equally not add anything to the debate..

Quote
So please, learn to read people's posts more accurately instead of jumping up and down like a child trying to spew out every thought that comes into your head.

I will work on being nicer, but when I read peoples posts in a debate, I naturally put them into context according to the subject of debate.. Seriously, what did he think I was debating in regards to FE theory and his first illustration, and his second illustration?? Was I the only one still talking about the curvature of the earth?


Quote
I will say again, Chill out. I agree about the dome crap, I don't need a science lecture in every single one of your posts, Argue with your evidence with an FE'r, not me.

Some people do, and I feel when I see a false illustration like the one posted at the beginning of this debate, that I should respond.. You may not require it, nor may many others.. I didn't post and argument or debate for people like you, me, or someone else that already understands these things, and there is nothing wrong with going into a scientific debate.. If you don't like science lectures, then don't read them sir, you do have a choice in the matter :)



 

Obviously words are lost to you, nevermind I said anything, continue what you were doing.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2010, 12:38:34 PM »
Quote
Obviously words are lost to you, nevermind I said anything, continue what you were doing.

What words exactly were those?   8)

FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2010, 04:50:58 PM »
Quote
Obviously words are lost to you, nevermind I said anything, continue what you were doing.

What words exactly were those?   8)



"Words" is being used as a noun, as in a general term for all words. As in you can't read. TY :).

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #102 on: July 20, 2010, 11:07:38 PM »
Quote
Obviously words are lost to you, nevermind I said anything, continue what you were doing.

What words exactly were those?   8)



"Words" is being used as a noun, as in a general term for all words. As in you can't read. TY :).

LOL, please provide :), You didn't specify which "general words" to which I am missing :) I can't be missing all of them since I can read your "words". So now this is a circular game! This ought to be fun :)
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #103 on: July 21, 2010, 12:19:41 AM »
Quote
Obviously words are lost to you, nevermind I said anything, continue what you were doing.

What words exactly were those?   8)



"Words" is being used as a noun, as in a general term for all words. As in you can't read. TY :).

LOL, please provide :), You didn't specify which "general words" to which I am missing :) I can't be missing all of them since I can read your "words". So now this is a circular game! This ought to be fun :)

The game, you lost it.

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #104 on: July 21, 2010, 12:36:58 AM »
Quote
Obviously words are lost to you, nevermind I said anything, continue what you were doing.

What words exactly were those?   8)



"Words" is being used as a noun, as in a general term for all words. As in you can't read. TY :).

LOL, please provide :), You didn't specify which "general words" to which I am missing :) I can't be missing all of them since I can read your "words". So now this is a circular game! This ought to be fun :)

The game, you lost it.

Where did I lose it if I am still playing it? :) You need to be more specific here, because you clearly can't read circular sarcasm. You let me know when you can keep up.   
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #105 on: July 21, 2010, 03:10:39 AM »
What's this, the annual smiley convention? Get back on topic.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12239
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #106 on: July 21, 2010, 03:17:33 AM »
What's this, the annual smiley convention? Get back on topic.
This guy doesn't seem to understand how punctuation works. I like him.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #107 on: July 21, 2010, 11:23:10 AM »
So, back to the OP, what Tom Bishop and Rowbotham never understood (or with which they play the idiots' part) is that the vanishing point is not a physical property, law or condition. It is an architectural drawing technique.

Back in the old days, when no AutoCad existed, a crude but effective method to draw a building giving the impression of great size and a view from a close location, called vanishing point. This technique is highly subjective and works well only if the drawing artist is skilled and experienced, but can give impressive results if used properly. But make no mistake: it is a drawing technique that has become obsolete since CAD/CAM programs became highly successful.

So, guess what, Tom Bishop has never been able to show us a scientific article which uses the vanishing point.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #108 on: July 21, 2010, 11:40:13 AM »
What's this, the annual smiley convention? Get back on topic.
This guy doesn't seem to understand how punctuation works. I like him.

Besides being a

would you mind getting back OT?
What are the odds that  he'll point that grammar=/=punctuation and prove me right by doing so?
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #109 on: July 21, 2010, 12:36:47 PM »
To sum up the thread: Bishop doesn't understand how existing at a point and existing as a limit approaching a point are different things.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12239
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #110 on: July 21, 2010, 12:42:39 PM »
What are the odds that  he'll point that grammar=/=punctuation and prove me right by doing so?
Sorry, what the fuck is =/=? It's ?,  !=, /= or <> you're looking for.

To sum up the thread: Bishop doesn't understand how existing at a point and existing as a limit approaching a point are different things.
Nope, he's actually making a point there.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

AdmiralAckbar

  • 523
  • Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #111 on: July 21, 2010, 12:46:03 PM »
What are the odds that  he'll point that grammar=/=punctuation and prove me right by doing so?
Sorry, what the fuck is =/=? It's ?,  !=, /= or <> you're looking for.

To sum up the thread: Bishop doesn't understand how existing at a point and existing as a limit approaching a point are different things.
Nope, he's actually making a point there.

=/= and != are the same thing. imagine drawing an equal sign with a slash through it...

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #112 on: July 21, 2010, 04:24:18 PM »
Wow PP, at least try to use google before making yourself look stupid. All you had to do was type "=/=" into google, especially considering you are the one critiquing everyone around here.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12239
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #113 on: July 21, 2010, 07:34:38 PM »
Wow PP, at least try to use google

Oh, but I did. =/= would mean equals divided by equals, which means no mathematical sense. Here's what you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign#Not_equal

before making yourself look stupid.
lol, see below:

All you had to do was type "=/=" into google
http://www.google.com/search?&q==/=
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22%3D%2F%3D%22
*ahem*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

especially considering you are the one critiquing everyone around here.
criticizing*
« Last Edit: July 21, 2010, 07:38:55 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #114 on: July 22, 2010, 01:15:12 AM »
Wow PP, at least try to use google

Oh, but I did. =/= would mean equals divided by equals, which means no mathematical sense. Here's what you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign#Not_equal


As long as the argument is over non-issues, the symbol =/= is used on the page you cited.

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #115 on: July 22, 2010, 04:23:03 AM »
Oh, but I did. =/= would mean equals divided by equals, which means no mathematical sense. Here's what you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign#Not_equal

Reread the link you posted and you will see that it also shows a slashed eqaul sign.

Quote
*ahem*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you would realize yourself that google doesn't search those signs, I thought you would have the intelligence to put it into word form yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=UTu&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&q=equal+slash+equal&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Quote
criticizing*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critiquing

You really aren't joking when you say you are 11 are you? But please do quote me again in attempt to prove you are right, all the more fun you provide us with.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2010, 04:25:38 AM by Raver »
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12239
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #116 on: July 22, 2010, 05:28:49 AM »
Oh, but I did. =/= would mean equals divided by equals, which means no mathematical sense. Here's what you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign#Not_equal

Reread the link you posted and you will see that it also shows a slashed eqaul sign.
Yes, it does. It doesn't use =/=, though. Sadly, our forum doesn't support the correct character, so we have to settle with the alternatives, being "!=", "~=", "/=" or "<>". The closest to what you did there is /=.

Quote
*ahem*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you would realize yourself that google doesn't search those signs, I thought you would have the intelligence to put it into word form yourself.
I bet that's why you put "=/=" in quotation marks; to indicate that it's not a direct quote. Yeah...
You need to read up on punctuation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=UTu&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&q=equal+slash+equal&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
And which of these sources would you call credible? I see none.

Quote
criticizing*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critiquing

Main Entry: critique
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cri·tiqued; cri·tiqu·ing
Date: 1751
: to examine critically : review <critique the plan>

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/critique_2#critique_2
critique something to write or give your opinion of, or reaction to, a set of ideas, a work of art, etc
Her job involves critiquing designs by fashion students.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/critique#Verb
to critique (third-person singular simple present critiques, present participle critiquing, simple past and past participle critiqued)
(US) To review something.
I want you to critique this new idea of mine.

No, I do not review (critique) people. Doing that would be difficult. I criticize them.
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/criticize
to say that you disapprove of somebody/something; to say what you do not like or think is wrong about somebody/something
I hope that clarifies the confusion. Please make sure you read the definitions if you post links to them.

You really aren't joking when you say you are 11 are you?
Why would you think I'm lying about that? I am 11.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Raver

  • 777
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #117 on: July 22, 2010, 06:18:55 AM »
tl;dr, OT and an unsuccesfull attempt at trolling all in one post, you sure are racking up dem combos.
Quote from: Gen. Douchebag
Quote from: Raver
Why? You a pedo out for delicious loli?
Sure, whatever

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12239
  • Now available in stereo
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #119 on: July 23, 2010, 05:46:15 PM »
Whoever posted the disproof of bent light is not relevant. Facts were posted which disproved it. If Parsec wants to dispute this I request he quotes the disproof and gives a blow by blow explanation of exactly where it goes wrong. I can find no fault with it and so I think it stands.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.