EAT is Flawed

In reading the wiki about EAT I find some fatal flaws in it.

If sunlight does make a parabolic curve then it would be possible, if in the right position to see the sun while looking at the ground.  Also sunlight bending away from the earth would light anything in the sky from clouds to planes to birds from the underside with bright light.  Neither effect has been observed

If I recall right, the explanation for the sinking ship using EAT is that the light from the hull hits the ground or bends upwards before it reaches the person so they can't see it where as the mast, being higher still reaches the person before it has time to bend away.  This is negated by the experiments of Rowbotham.  If light from the hull was bending away and didn't reach Rowbotham he would never have seen the hull when looking through a telescope as the light would never have reached him.  Since he did see it then it negates the claim.

In reading the wiki about EAT I find some fatal flaws in it.

If sunlight does make a parabolic curve then it would be possible, if in the right position to see the sun while looking at the ground.  Also sunlight bending away from the earth would light anything in the sky from clouds to planes to birds from the underside with bright light.  Neither effect has been observed

If I recall right, the explanation for the sinking ship using EAT is that the light from the hull hits the ground or bends upwards before it reaches the person so they can't see it where as the mast, being higher still reaches the person before it has time to bend away.  This is negated by the experiments of Rowbotham.  If light from the hull was bending away and didn't reach Rowbotham he would never have seen the hull when looking through a telescope as the light would never have reached him.  Since he did see it then it negates the claim.

It would also have to defy the laws of reflection and refraction to the point where most optical phenomenon you see today would either be non-existent or completely different. It's a complete fail. There is no need to argue it any further.

If sunlight does make a parabolic curve then it would be possible, if in the right position to see the sun while looking at the ground.  Also sunlight bending away from the earth would light anything in the sky from clouds to planes to birds from the underside with bright light.  Neither effect has been observed

Both effects do happen and are observed. In fact, there have been threads made in the past by REers asking how each would happen on a Flat Earth.

If I recall right, the explanation for the sinking ship using EAT is that the light from the hull hits the ground or bends upwards before it reaches the person so they can't see it where as the mast, being higher still reaches the person before it has time to bend away.  This is negated by the experiments of Rowbotham.  If light from the hull was bending away and didn't reach Rowbotham he would never have seen the hull when looking through a telescope as the light would never have reached him.  Since he did see it then it negates the claim.

If you accept Rowbotham's observations as valid, then yes it does contradict EA theory, as does it contradict RET. Much like RET, EA is an alternative model to Rowbotham's.

Much like RET, EA is an alternative model to Rowbotham's.

What is EA? You always talk about it but you have absolutely no knowledge about it.

Quote from: Parsifal on October 20, 2010, 10:20:40 PM

Much like RET, EA is an alternative model to Rowbotham's.

What is EA? You always talk about it but you have absolutely no knowledge about it.

Seeing as he invented EA, Parsifal is the leading EA specialist and has more knowledge of it than any other human.  Unfortunately, EA is such an immature theory that being the most knowledgeable about it really isn't saying much. 

In reading the wiki about EAT I find some fatal flaws in it.

If sunlight does make a parabolic curve then it would be possible, if in the right position to see the sun while looking at the ground.  Also sunlight bending away from the earth would light anything in the sky from clouds to planes to birds from the underside with bright light.  Neither effect has been observed

If I recall right, the explanation for the sinking ship using EAT is that the light from the hull hits the ground or bends upwards before it reaches the person so they can't see it where as the mast, being higher still reaches the person before it has time to bend away.  This is negated by the experiments of Rowbotham.  If light from the hull was bending away and didn't reach Rowbotham he would never have seen the hull when looking through a telescope as the light would never have reached him.  Since he did see it then it negates the claim.

Parsifal is the "Bendy Light" expert. If he dodged the question then you probably wont get a good answer.

Quote from: zork on October 20, 2010, 11:30:46 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on October 20, 2010, 10:20:40 PM

Much like RET, EA is an alternative model to Rowbotham's.

What is EA? You always talk about it but you have absolutely no knowledge about it.

Seeing as he invented EA, Parsifal is the leading EA specialist and has more knowledge of it than any other human.  Unfortunately, EA is such an immature theory that being the most knowledgeable about it really isn't saying much. 

I guess we are all in the same level with him. We all know that it supposedly bends light but that is all. Nothing more is known about it.

Quote from: digitalartist on October 20, 2010, 07:48:01 PM

If sunlight does make a parabolic curve then it would be possible, if in the right position to see the sun while looking at the ground.  Also sunlight bending away from the earth would light anything in the sky from clouds to planes to birds from the underside with bright light.  Neither effect has been observed

Both effects do happen and are observed. In fact, there have been threads made in the past by REers asking how each would happen on a Flat Earth.

Please post some links to information showing that the sun has been observed when looking at the ground (not water).  Also to some information where bright sunlight (not reflected sunlight) has been observed lighting the bottoms of clouds, planes, etc..

Quote from: digitalartist on October 20, 2010, 07:48:01 PM

If I recall right, the explanation for the sinking ship using EAT is that the light from the hull hits the ground or bends upwards before it reaches the person so they can't see it where as the mast, being higher still reaches the person before it has time to bend away.  This is negated by the experiments of Rowbotham.  If light from the hull was bending away and didn't reach Rowbotham he would never have seen the hull when looking through a telescope as the light would never have reached him.  Since he did see it then it negates the claim.

If you accept Rowbotham's observations as valid, then yes it does contradict EA theory, as does it contradict RET. Much like RET, EA is an alternative model to Rowbotham's.

Since Rowbotham's observations (whether I believe in them or not) do contradict EAT and since FET is based on Rowbotham's observations, then to accept EAT is to throw away the foundation that holds up the FET.  To maintain them both just defeats attempts to prove the FET.

"Both effects do happen and are observed. In fact, there have been threads made in the past by REers asking how each would happen on a Flat Earth."

Justify this statement.

"If you accept Rowbotham's observations as valid, then yes it does contradict EA theory, as does it contradict RET. Much like RET, EA is an alternative model to Rowbotham's."


So the rejection of Rowbotham's observations means you have to default to EAT?