Why don't you flat earthers

  • 194 Replies
  • 34612 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #120 on: September 05, 2010, 09:42:45 PM »
*sigh*  Let's try this one more time.  Refraction and EAT (bendy light) are two different phenomena with two different mechanisms.  According to EAT, there is no reason that both phenomena can't exist with their separate mechanisms.

Markjo I am well aware of the difference in the phenomenon. Your problem with this argument is the interaction of the two phenomenon described here. Hence, I am telling you that light to which bends equally will drastically effect how light will refract. Hence, there would be a difference in the optical phenomenon described here in this thread. This is irregardless of separate mechanisms due to the fact they would have to interact with each other. So what happens with light that bends equally when it refracts vs light that doesn't bend equally when it refracts? If you think there would be no difference here in the optical phenomenon we see everyday, you would have to be pretty dense to think it wouldn't.

So it's a fair question to ask how EAT would be apart of the optical phenomenon like a superior mirage.

Refraction works at the boundary of two media with different optical densities.  Essentially, refraction happens immediately.  The dark energy interaction with light (EAT) is much more subtle and can take several miles or more to be noticeable.  In fact, when observed over long long, flat terrain, the effect can be mistaken for the curvature of the earth.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #121 on: September 06, 2010, 06:45:10 AM »
*sigh*  Let's try this one more time.  Refraction and EAT (bendy light) are two different phenomena with two different mechanisms.  According to EAT, there is no reason that both phenomena can't exist with their separate mechanisms.

Markjo I am well aware of the difference in the phenomenon. Your problem with this argument is the interaction of the two phenomenon described here. Hence, I am telling you that light to which bends equally will drastically effect how light will refract. Hence, there would be a difference in the optical phenomenon described here in this thread. This is irregardless of separate mechanisms due to the fact they would have to interact with each other. So what happens with light that bends equally when it refracts vs light that doesn't bend equally when it refracts? If you think there would be no difference here in the optical phenomenon we see everyday, you would have to be pretty dense to think it wouldn't.

So it's a fair question to ask how EAT would be apart of the optical phenomenon like a superior mirage.

Refraction works at the boundary of two media with different optical densities.  Essentially, refraction happens immediately.  The dark energy interaction with light (EAT) is much more subtle and can take several miles or more to be noticeable.  In fact, when observed over long long, flat terrain, the effect can be mistaken for the curvature of the earth.

That is only what EAT purports to do Markjo as a conjectural hypothesis. The problem here is that it doesn't matter how little you think EAT effects light over distance or if refraction happens immediately.. EAT is stating that light bends equally while refraction states that is false. And if EAT is going to purport that DE will cause light to bend equally, well sorry but that is going to effect refraction no matter how you try to cut it. This is regardless if you think refraction happens immediately or not. Especially when refraction can occur more than once before the light ever reaches your eyes. One can not change how light bends here and achieve the same optical phenomenon.

And no Markjo you can not make a flat plane give the appearance of the curvature of the Earth on both the X and Y axis simply because the surface will not allow it. You can not place the focal point below the observer over a flat plane at near ground level to achieve this. The best you could do over a flat Earth is get a concave (parabolic bowl) or flat surface. And in order to have two objects not to be in optical line of sight of each other over a flat surface area, the observers would have to be in a parabolic bowl to where the horizon is above head level of each of the observers. And giving the way EAT describes how it bends light, that is what it would do. And since we don't have to look up to see the horizon, EAT is thus false. And I won't get into how such an illusion or mirage would be completely unstable as is, or unstable as you move the light source around.



« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 06:49:55 AM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #122 on: September 06, 2010, 07:39:53 AM »
Refraction works at the boundary of two media with different optical densities.  Essentially, refraction happens immediately.  The dark energy interaction with light (EAT) is much more subtle and can take several miles or more to be noticeable.  In fact, when observed over long long, flat terrain, the effect can be mistaken for the curvature of the earth.
It is nice of you, someone with scientific know-how, to try to give FE theorists a fighting chance. But what they need is a miracle (or ten).

Remember, the A in EAT is acceleration, and even the dismal attempts (like the y=rx4/3 formula) only talk about a vertical acceleration of Earth and/or light.

But the braindead EAT does not even talk about horizontal bending. so any prediction based on these vague ideas does not even get the horizontal position of the objects right.

If you want to help FE theorists, help them find a way to accelerate Earth both vertically and horizontally, and to accelerate the southern hemiplane more than the northern hemiplane.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #123 on: September 06, 2010, 01:22:24 PM »
No, I gave him the evidence he asked for (as was pointed out), and he ignored it.  That's why he's trolling.

Protip: Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

I never claimed to have evidence that he was right.  I claimed to have evidence that Steve's model doesn't rely on refraction.  Here it is again:

Cool. I guess you didn't hear me. I'll try again.

Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #124 on: September 06, 2010, 01:27:46 PM »
No, I gave him the evidence he asked for (as was pointed out), and he ignored it.  That's why he's trolling.

Protip: Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

I never claimed to have evidence that he was right.  I claimed to have evidence that Steve's model doesn't rely on refraction.  Here it is again:

Cool. I guess you didn't hear me. I'll try again.

Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

lol, same old Crusty.  I know you're just feigning ignorance so I won't even bother responding in any meaningful way; I've successfully defended myself enough in this thread.

Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Horatio

  • Official Member
  • 4016
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #125 on: September 06, 2010, 01:35:10 PM »
No, I gave him the evidence he asked for (as was pointed out), and he ignored it.  That's why he's trolling.

Protip: Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

I never claimed to have evidence that he was right.  I claimed to have evidence that Steve's model doesn't rely on refraction.  Here it is again:

Cool. I guess you didn't hear me. I'll try again.

Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

lol, same old Crusty.  I know you're just feigning ignorance so I won't even bother responding in any meaningful way; I've successfully defended myself enough in this thread.

Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!

That's really not how science works.
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #126 on: September 06, 2010, 01:36:55 PM »
No, I gave him the evidence he asked for (as was pointed out), and he ignored it.  That's why he's trolling.

Protip: Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

I never claimed to have evidence that he was right.  I claimed to have evidence that Steve's model doesn't rely on refraction.  Here it is again:

Cool. I guess you didn't hear me. I'll try again.

Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

lol, same old Crusty.  I know you're just feigning ignorance so I won't even bother responding in any meaningful way; I've successfully defended myself enough in this thread.

Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!

That's really not how science works.

 ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #127 on: September 06, 2010, 01:40:14 PM »
I've successfully defended myself enough in this thread.

No you've defended yourself by quoting Parsifal. That's never successful.

?

Horatio

  • Official Member
  • 4016
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #128 on: September 06, 2010, 01:46:32 PM »
No, I gave him the evidence he asked for (as was pointed out), and he ignored it.  That's why he's trolling.

Protip: Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

I never claimed to have evidence that he was right.  I claimed to have evidence that Steve's model doesn't rely on refraction.  Here it is again:

Cool. I guess you didn't hear me. I'll try again.

Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

lol, same old Crusty.  I know you're just feigning ignorance so I won't even bother responding in any meaningful way; I've successfully defended myself enough in this thread.

Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!

That's really not how science works.

 ???

Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #129 on: September 06, 2010, 01:48:51 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Horatio

  • Official Member
  • 4016
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #130 on: September 06, 2010, 01:50:08 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?

"Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!"

It's not a victory, jackass.
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #131 on: September 06, 2010, 01:52:24 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?

"Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!"

It's not a victory, jackass.

Why not?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Horatio

  • Official Member
  • 4016
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #132 on: September 06, 2010, 01:54:24 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?

"Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!"

It's not a victory, jackass.

Why not?

Because this forum does not exist in a grade school classroom.
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #133 on: September 06, 2010, 01:55:28 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?

"Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!"

It's not a victory, jackass.

Why not?

Because this forum does not exist in a grade school classroom.

Again I don't see the relevance.  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Horatio

  • Official Member
  • 4016
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #134 on: September 06, 2010, 01:57:13 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?

"Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!"

It's not a victory, jackass.

Why not?

Because this forum does not exist in a grade school classroom.

Again I don't see the relevance.  ???

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you have never received an education.
How dare you have the audacity to demand my deposition. I've never even heard of you.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #135 on: September 06, 2010, 01:58:13 PM »
Yea, scientists don't decide which theory is right by which group of scientists resort to name calling first.

When did I say they did?

"Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!"

It's not a victory, jackass.

Why not?

Because this forum does not exist in a grade school classroom.

Again I don't see the relevance.  ???

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you have never received an education.

All right, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #136 on: September 06, 2010, 08:35:25 PM »
No, I gave him the evidence he asked for (as was pointed out), and he ignored it.  That's why he's trolling.

Protip: Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

I never claimed to have evidence that he was right.  I claimed to have evidence that Steve's model doesn't rely on refraction.  Here it is again:

Cool. I guess you didn't hear me. I'll try again.

Steve's troll posts are not "evidence".

lol, same old Crusty.  I know you're just feigning ignorance so I won't even bother responding in any meaningful way; I've successfully defended myself enough in this thread.

Also, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  Another victory for FE!

That's really not how science works.

 ???

First off, nobody said EAT itself has anything to do with refraction as an individual conjectural process. The problem I have given you had nothing to do with whether or not EAT itself included any part of snell's law in its equation, it has to do with it's interactions with refraction and snell's law that makes it completely wrong. It can not escape this problem. Claiming DE would make all frequencies and wavelengths bend equally with the same velocity is nonsensical! And I would love to see Parsifal attempt to show light frequencies and wavelengths bending equally with the same velocities while recreating optical phenomenon such as the superior mirage, or the Green Flash. And I will say this now, he never will! EAT would literally make a superior mirage impossible, and many other kinds of optical phenomenon non-existent. And that is especially true since mirages like the superior mirage will require light to be consistent with the RE model. Thus if the light was bending as EAT predicts, a Superior mirage simply would never be an optical phenomenon.

Let me make this more clearer to you. Light has a spectrum of colors that all have different frequencies and wavelengths. The reason why you get the color spectrum dispersion after passing white light through a prism is because these frequencies and wavelengths vary in how much they will bend as they pass through the prism.  This separation is called "Dispersion". If the white light and it's spectrum all bent equally as EAT predicts, it's dispersion would be white light. Thus under EAT, there would be no dispersion of the color spectrum regardless of the optical density of the prism. So what we see in real life is that light frequencies and wavelengths do not bend equally, and at equal velocity. These same principles apply to other things like radio waves, and sound waves because they to do not bend equally between all their frequencies and wavelengths.

And BTW, the Green Flash really shows why the Sun is actually going below the horizon. It's not an optical phenomenon that will occur in the FE model, and especially in the EAT model. Worse yet, EAT predicts light would bend way more than the RET model over equal distances.  ::)

Quote
All right, another REer is resorting to mindless trolling!  ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!

You actually need a victory before you can make such a claim to victory ::) And I don't recall FE ever winning anything. Unless you think assertions, circular arguments, pseudoscience, faith based belief, trolling, and conspiracy theories magically make you a winner lol.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 11:30:47 AM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #137 on: September 06, 2010, 09:51:32 PM »
I've made an exciting discovery! If I call someone a troll, I magically don't have to respond to their argument!
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #138 on: September 06, 2010, 10:01:56 PM »
I've made an exciting discovery! If I call someone a troll, I magically don't have to respond to their argument!

The thing is, I can't possibly respond to his argument at this point any more succinctly, elegantly, or precisely than I already have.

Also, another REer resorts to mindless trolling, another victory for FE.  THEY KEEP RACKING UP!
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #139 on: September 06, 2010, 10:07:53 PM »
Thanks for proving my point.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #140 on: September 06, 2010, 10:13:13 PM »
I've made an exciting discovery! If I call someone a troll, I magically don't have to respond to their argument!

The thing is, I can't possibly respond to his argument at this point any more succinctly, elegantly, or precisely than I already have.

Also, another REer resorts to mindless trolling, another victory for FE.  THEY KEEP RACKING UP!

You can't respond because you don't seem to understand how light works. You might want to start with a few physics books on the subject. Your argument fails to address the nature of validity. Hence, you seem just as incapable of substantiating EAT as Parsifal is. EAT is a lot of pseudoscience with nothing to support it. ::) Where are the experiments to demonstrate it? Where is the data to actually substantiate it? Where is the peer review?

When Parsifal can prove EAT, I will kindly consider it. So far EAT has shown itself to be utterly nonsensical. In fact, I can add this to the Earthquakes thread, and the FE Map thread to where FE also failed.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 02:01:29 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #141 on: September 06, 2010, 10:18:49 PM »
I've made an exciting discovery! If I call someone a troll, I magically don't have to respond to their argument!

The thing is, I can't possibly respond to his argument at this point any more succinctly, elegantly, or precisely than I already have.

Also, another REer resorts to mindless trolling, another victory for FE.  THEY KEEP RACKING UP!
Your limitations are not of interest, as you demonstrate all of your shortcomings on a regular basis.

Green Flash means RET. EAT violates the Laws of Optics. EAT violates the premises of SR and GR.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #142 on: September 06, 2010, 10:54:23 PM »
They know that the Earth is actually round.
The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken. -Samuel Johnson

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #143 on: September 07, 2010, 02:34:34 PM »
Your limitations are not of interest, as you demonstrate all of your shortcomings on a regular basis.

Pot, meet kettle!

Quote
Green Flash means RET.

As soon as this statement is supported I will gladly concede the point.  That's all I've been asking for, but nobody seems able to do it.

Quote
EAT violates the Laws of Optics.

Ditto.

Quote
EAT violates the premises of SR and GR.

I never even stated an opinion one way or the other on this.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 02:36:44 PM by Roundy the Truthinessist »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #144 on: September 07, 2010, 02:38:27 PM »
You can't respond because you don't seem to understand how light works. You might want to start with a few physics books on the subject.

I never claimed to be an expert on optics; however, you've been presenting yourself as such.  I don't think it's too much to ask that you support your statements rationally.  I'm not making the claim here, you are.  I'm trying to learn here.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #145 on: September 07, 2010, 03:04:39 PM »
Thanks for proving my point.

Not at all.  I responded to your incorrect point before I pointed out that it was a pointless troll (as is the above-quoted post).
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #146 on: September 07, 2010, 03:37:39 PM »
You can't respond because you don't seem to understand how light works. You might want to start with a few physics books on the subject.

I never claimed to be an expert on optics; however, you've been presenting yourself as such.  I don't think it's too much to ask that you support your statements rationally.  I'm not making the claim here, you are.  I'm trying to learn here.

I am not going to sit here and give you a 4 year course in the physics of Optics. I have provided you with exactly why light bends differently, and examples of why it does. If you want to get really into it, you can read some physics books, snell's law, and many other books on optics.

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

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #147 on: September 07, 2010, 03:41:55 PM »
You can't respond because you don't seem to understand how light works. You might want to start with a few physics books on the subject.

I never claimed to be an expert on optics; however, you've been presenting yourself as such.  I don't think it's too much to ask that you support your statements rationally.  I'm not making the claim here, you are.  I'm trying to learn here.

I am not going to sit here and give you a 4 year course in the physics of Optics.

Such an answer is worth nothing. I might as well make up calculations and when people tell me to explain them I'll just say, "I'm not here to teach math".

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #148 on: September 07, 2010, 03:49:39 PM »
I am not going to sit here and give you a 4 year course in the physics of Optics.

Surely you don't need to do that to back up your one little, specific claim.

Quote
I have provided you with exactly why light bends differently, and examples of why it does.

And?  You seem to still be missing the fact that EAT describes an entirely different way for light to bend differently independent of those you bring up.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Why don't you flat earthers
« Reply #149 on: September 07, 2010, 04:17:06 PM »
Quote
Green Flash means RET.
Quote
As soon as this statement is supported I will gladly concede the point.  That's all I've been asking for, but nobody seems able to do it.

In dealing with Green Flashes light will move slower in the denser air to which is lower to the ground than in the thinner air in higher altitudes of the atmosphere. Thus sunlight rays will follow paths that curve/bend slightly in the same direction as the curvature of the Earth as the sun sets on the Horizon. The Green flash is enhanced by the density gradient in the atmosphere to which increases refraction. If the Earth was flat, or if the Sun was a "spot light disk", these green flashes would never occur because they are dependent of the curvature of the Earth, and a Spherical Sun to which is not a spot light.  As the sun begins to descend below the physical obstruction of the horizon, The curvature of the Earth physically obstructs the red light leaving the blue/ green light at the upper limb of the setting sun. Here blue is almost always scattered light to leave a green flash.

Anyways here is Optics for beginners:

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/optics/optintro.html

We can also go into many other types of optical phenomenon that is consistent with the RE model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_of_Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpenglow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterglow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiacal_light
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegenschein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander%27s_band
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 04:50:01 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?