Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

  • 725 Replies
  • 126610 Views
*

IOA

  • 507
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2010, 04:09:46 AM »
And where exactly does UA come into this?

If the Flat Earth hypothesis falls apart at UA, how can you possibly believe anything else about it?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2010, 09:35:49 AM »
And where exactly does UA come into this?

If the Flat Earth hypothesis falls apart at UA, how can you possibly believe anything else about it?
Oh, okay. The Round Earth protohypothesis falls apart at claiming that the Earth is round. It obviously isn't, and therefore satellites don't exist.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2010, 09:36:32 AM »
So, how is proving "bendy light" coming along?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2010, 09:39:47 AM »
By using them, of course. They gave me the result that it was predicted they should give me: therefore, they work.
Oh, so now you own a telescope! Let's see it. Unless, of course, you've been lying yet again; which would be hardly surprising, wouldn't you agree?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2010, 03:09:57 PM »
And where exactly does UA come into this?

If the Flat Earth hypothesis falls apart at UA, how can you possibly believe anything else about it?
Oh, okay. The Round Earth protohypothesis falls apart at claiming that the Earth is round. It obviously isn't, and therefore satellites don't exist.

First of all, Round Earth is considered a theory, as it is unanimously regarded as fact by every scientist in the world. Secondly, I didn't claim that Flat Earth theory was wrong because it's wrong. I said it was wrong because (basically) it all falls apart at UA - if there's no "gravity" (or substitute, in that model), then we can't remain on Earth, unless you want to remodel the Flat Earth hypothesis, which is clearly in order since Universal Acceleration doesn't explain all gravity-related phenomenon.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2010, 03:49:33 PM »
By using them, of course. They gave me the result that it was predicted they should give me: therefore, they work.
Oh, so now you own a telescope! Let's see it. Unless, of course, you've been lying yet again; which would be hardly surprising, wouldn't you agree?

I could easily show you a picture of my telescope. However, photographs are not accepted as evidence on this forum. It looks like this, though:


Pray tell, what else have I lied about? Make a list.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 03:51:59 PM by Thermal Detonator »
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2010, 03:52:02 PM »
I could easily show you a picture of my telescope.
Excellent. Proceed.

Pray tell, what else have I lied about?
For example, having browsed my post history, or remembering me from before.

Make a list.
Please make a diagram (to scale!) that presents all reasons as to why I would bother.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2010, 04:00:06 PM »
I could easily show you a picture of my telescope.
Excellent. Proceed.

Pray tell, what else have I lied about?
For example, having browsed my post history, or remembering me from before.

Make a list.
Please make a diagram (to scale!) that presents all reasons as to why I would bother.

So you really want me to post a picture of my telescope? How would I prove it was mine and not one I nabbed from Teh Internest?
2. I had a flip through your post history a couple of days ago, not the entire thing of course but your most recent. There was a high proportion of grammatical nitpicking that jumped out at me. As to remembering you from before, the whole reason I commented is that right now, you are one of the most aggressive, nasty posters on the forum. Back then when I was last here, you didn't post in such an aggressive style, at least not aimed at me - if you had done, then I would have not found your current behaviour so striking. You are posting just like Parsec used to, but if anything he's quietened down the aggression since the summer. The change in style is what is noticeable, not your previous bland posts.
3. That response makes no sense. I therefore conclude you have no evidence I have lied about anything. I see no need to persuade you otherwise, just like it's up to the police to prove guilt, it's up to you to prove your accusation of falsehood.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2010, 04:20:24 PM »
So you really want me to post a picture of my telescope? How would I prove it was mine and not one I nabbed from Teh Internest?
2. I had a flip through your post history a couple of days ago, not the entire thing of course but your most recent. There was a high proportion of grammatical nitpicking that jumped out at me. As to remembering you from before, the whole reason I commented is that right now, you are one of the most aggressive, nasty posters on the forum. Back then when I was last here, you didn't post in such an aggressive style, at least not aimed at me - if you had done, then I would have not found your current behaviour so striking. You are posting just like Parsec used to, but if anything he's quietened down the aggression since the summer. The change in style is what is noticeable, not your previous bland posts.
3. That response makes no sense. I therefore conclude you have no evidence I have lied about anything. I see no need to persuade you otherwise, just like it's up to the police to prove guilt, it's up to you to prove your accusation of falsehood.
1. Post one. We'll worry about how genuine it is later.
2. Haha. Yeah. Lurk moar <3
3. No, it's your response that makes no sense. You claiming a "change of style" is all evidence of you being a hypocritical liar I need. I see no need to persuade you; after all, you know your lies the best. Also, if your "innocent until proven guilty" idea stands, then surely you can point out the "change of style". Oh, wait, you can't. Yeah, moar hypocrisy.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2010, 04:37:53 PM »
So, how is proving "bendy light" coming along?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #70 on: December 28, 2010, 05:46:34 PM »
By using them, of course. They gave me the result that it was predicted they should give me: therefore, they work.

I predict that a + b = 4. If I set a to 2 and b to 2, it gives me the result I predicted. Therefore, a + b is always equal to 4.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #71 on: December 28, 2010, 06:17:18 PM »
By using them, of course. They gave me the result that it was predicted they should give me: therefore, they work.

I predict that a + b = 4. If I set a to 2 and b to 2, it gives me the result I predicted. Therefore, a + b is always equal to 4.

If you equate the setting circle to represent the mathematical function of addition in your example, then yes it will always give the answers predicted, just as adding numbers together will always give the answer that is the sum of those numbers.
However, if you predict a+b = 4 and set a to 1 and b to 7, then your prediction that a + b = 4 is incorrect. In other words, a and b cannot be variable outside their relation to each other, or the addition function will not work.
The equivalent with the setting circle is Star A (setting circle function) Star B = distance C. If A or B changes outside their relation to each other (in other words, change in position of one is not compensated for by change in position of the other, as with adding numbers) then the value of C will be different. Distance C is predicted to be variable under Bendy Light but not under normal light.
Going back to numbers, 1+3 and 2+2 both equal 4. To keep the answer as 4, both the other components of the equation have to change, not just one. If b changes, so must a.
Position of Star A (setting circle) Position of Star B works in exactly the same way.
Thankyou for providing a mathematical proof to help back up the accuracy of setting circles in a theoretical context. Of course this was accidental - you don't actually understand how setting circles are used so you didn't realise how silly your example was.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #72 on: December 28, 2010, 06:36:30 PM »
Thankyou for providing a mathematical proof to help back up the accuracy of setting circles in a theoretical context. Of course this was accidental - you don't actually understand how setting circles are used so you didn't realise how silly your example was.

Actually, you just missed the point of the analogy by taking it too literally. The point was that no matter how many times a prediction comes true, you can never be certain that it will always hold true -- in other words, you cannot know that the prediction is valid in general.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42317
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #73 on: December 28, 2010, 07:08:43 PM »
The point was that no matter how many times a prediction comes true, you can never be certain that it will always hold true -- in other words, you cannot know that the prediction is valid in general.

That would depend on how well the model that the predictions are based on represents reality.
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.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #74 on: December 28, 2010, 07:11:10 PM »
That would depend on how well the model that the predictions are based on represents reality.

The prediction's validity would, but not whether you can know if it is valid.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #75 on: December 28, 2010, 07:42:15 PM »
Statistically speaking, three out of four Earths are flat.
Also, I love it how no one addresses my diagram anymore. Another victory for FET!
What, you thought we were done?

Hello,
The supposed inconsistency between the distances measured on the (supposedly round) Earth and the most commonly used model of FE has been a strikingly overused topic, especially lately. Need I remind anyone of TheJackel's "all I need is a time speed distance circular calculator you are pleading for credibility lol.. 8)"? If so, I just have. If not, let us proceed.
The map considered for this solution is:


The solution itself bases on the fact that, due to bendy light, rays hit the Earth at different angles, and thus the projections of the same length on the surface will differ. They will be longer as we approach the rim. Thus, what we currently consider a metre will appear considerably longer, leading us to an illusion of RE distances. The definition of our units of length is at fault - it is an application of optics (which already assume perfectly straight light rays, hitting the round Earth at approximately 90 degrees). An actual unit of length should take Bendy Light into account, and thus consider an apparently longer distance to be - more or less - the same as something smaller closer to the pole.

The following diagram explains the problem in detail:


Are you saying the land itself will look stretched out from above? 

Distances as seen from the ground itself will appear longer? 

Both?

Do the supposed guards along the edge see their hands and feet 20ft ahead of them as they walk along the perimeter?

 The sunlight hitting the ground at an angle will only make longer shadows just like in the late afternoon/early morning.  The reflecting scattered light off objects after the sunlight hits it would have to be distorted in order to make things look longer. 


Now, this would seem to be a baseless conclusion. And yes, you would be right, if it weren't for the fact that many RE'ers favourite map* - Google Maps - confirms it. Just have a look at these screens, both taken at the same objective zoom:



Oh, so 1000km is approximately the same as 200km in different places. How very peculiar. As you can see, it's the RE model that's inconsistent, not only with reality, but even with itself!
Google maps completely contradicts your 'flat earth' map that you chose.  Your 'flat earth' image shows the south pole stretched around the edge, and everything northward getting smaller until the north pole is a tiny spot in the middle.  Google maps shows the north and south poles stretched out to the same size, which is the reason for the varying distance scale.

Why does that distance vary?  Because as I mentioned before, when the surface of a sphere is cut from one pole to the other, and then made to lay out flat in a rectangle shape, it's either going to rip to pieces, or stretch in a way that the poles (top and bottom of this sheet) get stretched until they are the same length as the equator.

Google Earth is a map that shows it as a sphere, along with the moon and Mars.

Google maps confirms nothing as far as your diagram is concerned.  If it were an accurate representation of the Earth, Alaska would encompass an area almost the same size as the lower 48 states, and Greenland would be almost the same size as all of North America.
[/quote]


 A round Earth is a geographical impossibility. That is all.
A round Earth is the only geographical possibility.  (Just like every other planet, moon and star that is round)

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #76 on: December 28, 2010, 07:46:46 PM »
Thankyou for providing a mathematical proof to help back up the accuracy of setting circles in a theoretical context. Of course this was accidental - you don't actually understand how setting circles are used so you didn't realise how silly your example was.

Actually, you just missed the point of the analogy by taking it too literally. The point was that no matter how many times a prediction comes true, you can never be certain that it will always hold true -- in other words, you cannot know that the prediction is valid in general.

However, setting circles don't have to work every time in order to crush bendy light, they only need to work twice in order to put paid to your theory. The hundreds of thousands of times that professional and amateur astronomers in every country on earth have used them with consistent results is merely the heel of the boot grinding bendy light into the dust. In fact, even if they didn't work every time, they could still disprove bendy light. A 50% accuracy rate would be more than enough, because bendy light produces predictable results. If setting circles produced unpredictable results then that would be inconsistent with bendy light. But guess what? They have, so far, produced results entirely in keeping with conventional straight light.
One three legged horse is all it takes to crush the notion that all horses have four legs. One comparable pair of astrometric measurements is all it takes to crush the notion that light bends.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #77 on: December 28, 2010, 07:52:35 PM »
Are you saying the land itself will look stretched out from above? 

Distances as seen from the ground itself will appear longer? 

Both?
Neither. Please read the diagram.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #78 on: December 28, 2010, 07:55:21 PM »
Are you saying the land itself will look stretched out from above? 

Distances as seen from the ground itself will appear longer? 

Both?
Neither. Please read the diagram.

Why are you bothering with the diagram? Bendy light was just disproved. Again. Do try to keep up.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #79 on: December 28, 2010, 09:36:58 PM »
Why are you bothering with the diagram? Bendy light was just disproved. Again. Do try to keep up.
No such thing happened. You made a claim and you supported it with "It works, but you obviously wouldn't understand, since you don't know how it works". Not only is this circular, it also proves nothing. Also, "Do try to keep up." sounds awfully familiar...  ::)
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #80 on: December 28, 2010, 09:54:22 PM »
Why are you bothering with the diagram? Bendy light was just disproved. Again. Do try to keep up.
No such thing happened. You made a claim and you supported it with "It works, but you obviously wouldn't understand, since you don't know how it works". Not only is this circular, it also proves nothing. Also, "Do try to keep up." sounds awfully familiar...  ::)

You aren't keeping up. It needs to be said. You don't seem to be able to understand what you're reading here, especially if you think I was supporting anything with the bit about Parsy not understanding (which was merely an aside about a post that indicated lack of understanding on his part - if he understood them he would not have made that argument as he did because he would have known it to be useless), and even more so if you think bendy light hasn't been disproved.
Tell you what, let's be scientific about this. I have presented my case as to why I think bendy light has been disproved. If you think my idea is wrong, please tell me exactly which parts you disagree with. Between what I've posted here and links provided to other threads, my whole disproof is pretty much laid out for you to examine. In true scientific style, I relish errors in my theory being critically examined.
What I do NOT want to hear is:
1."You're wrong" without specific reference to what part of my disproof is in error.
2."You don't understand bendy light" without enlightenment as to exactly what aspect of it I don't understand, and explanation accompanying that aspect to clarify it for me.
3. Any guff about setting circles not being valid. As has been shown, it only takes one comparative pair of star angular distance measurements to give the same reading to squash bendy light, it is not a case of "someday the setting circles might not work." See analogy about horses legs.
4. Nitpicking about grammar or phrasing or any of the usual ad hominems from Pizza Planet.
5. Parsitroll deliberately introducing new concepts without explaining he is doing so in an attempt to obfuscate.
6. Tom Bishop.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #81 on: December 28, 2010, 10:09:38 PM »
1."You're wrong" without specific reference to what part of my disproof is in error.
But that's exactly what you're doing here.

As has been shown
Nothing has been shown. Not even "your" telescope.

any of the usual ad hominems from Pizza Planet.
Wow, an ad hominem in a "no ad hominem, please" request. How's that for meta hypocrisy?

5. Parsitroll deliberately introducing new concepts without explaining he is doing so in an attempt to obfuscate.
6. Tom Bishop.
Wow. Two more ad hominems right after an ad hominem "no ad hominem, please" request. How's that for post-meta hypocrisy?


EDIT: To summarise: The problem is that you did NOT present your reasoning. Feel free to do so.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2010, 10:14:56 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #82 on: December 28, 2010, 10:16:55 PM »
However, setting circles don't have to work every time in order to crush bendy light, they only need to work twice in order to put paid to your theory.

Earlier you used "setting circles work" as a premise, and now you have been shown incapable of defending even that. Please come back when you have a consistent argument.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

IOA

  • 507
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #83 on: December 28, 2010, 11:11:42 PM »
Does the Scientific Method mean anything to you people? Why would the conclusion suddenly change for no reason?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #84 on: December 29, 2010, 04:09:01 AM »
Another massive FE fail. I ask for scientific critique of my bendy light disproof, and I get a mixture of reality denial, sidetracking about who's insulted who, and not a single comment on my disproof.
Until a proper critique of my disproof is offered, it stands. Parsifal, your "prove setting circles work" demand is no different to saying "prove cars work" or "prove x-ray machines work", or any other man made device. I have explained to you that you can visit an astronomy club and they can show you the operation of such a device, proving it to work to your satisfaction. Since all you'll accept is first hand evidence and not anybody's word for it, refusal to investigate it yourself cannot be used as an argument for bendy light when the opportunities are there for you.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #85 on: December 29, 2010, 04:15:32 AM »
Until a proper critique of my disproof is offered, it stands. Parsifal, your "prove setting circles work" demand is no different to saying "prove cars work" or "prove x-ray machines work", or any other man made device. I have explained to you that you can visit an astronomy club and they can show you the operation of such a device, proving it to work to your satisfaction. Since all you'll accept is first hand evidence and not anybody's word for it, refusal to investigate it yourself cannot be used as an argument for bendy light when the opportunities are there for you.

I would accept your word for it, if you would explain your method of verification. Thus far, you have failed to produce a satisfactory one.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #86 on: December 29, 2010, 04:31:14 AM »
Until a proper critique of my disproof is offered, it stands. Parsifal, your "prove setting circles work" demand is no different to saying "prove cars work" or "prove x-ray machines work", or any other man made device. I have explained to you that you can visit an astronomy club and they can show you the operation of such a device, proving it to work to your satisfaction. Since all you'll accept is first hand evidence and not anybody's word for it, refusal to investigate it yourself cannot be used as an argument for bendy light when the opportunities are there for you.

I would accept your word for it, if you would explain your method of verification. Thus far, you have failed to produce a satisfactory one.

I have already explained this, because the term "using setting circles" is a summary of:
I have set up my telescope with proper polar alignment, navigated from one known star to another known star by using right ascension and declination coordinates, and found that what the telescope ends up pointed at agrees in practice with what theory predicts it should. I have done this many times. So have thousands of others.
Method of verification explained. You will now accept my word for it.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Atom Man

  • 195
  • Watch out for that tree
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #87 on: December 29, 2010, 05:39:14 AM »
I am sure that you TD are well aware of the issue. Despite the over whelming scientific texts that explain theory and experimentation, we (REer's) cannot expect them to research and test FET.

I would say that most FEer's would not claim to be RE specialists but understand scientific principles. Since this is the FES, I would expect that FE members are FE specialists (as they claim). Therefore if FEer's are genuine in promoting FET (ha ha ha), they need to read scientific texts, constructivly critique and provide reasonable alternitive theory.

Does any out there really expect FES to promote FET?
Urinal Etiquette is like Ghost Busting: Never Cross the Streams

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #88 on: December 29, 2010, 07:15:24 AM »
I am sure that you TD are well aware of the issue. Despite the over whelming scientific texts that explain theory and experimentation, we (REer's) cannot expect them to research and test FET.

I would say that most FEer's would not claim to be RE specialists but understand scientific principles. Since this is the FES, I would expect that FE members are FE specialists (as they claim). Therefore if FEer's are genuine in promoting FET (ha ha ha), they need to read scientific texts, constructivly critique and provide reasonable alternitive theory.

Does any out there really expect FES to promote FET?

You're right, Atom. It's not about trying to promote FET, or even about arguing a devil's advocate position for it in a sensible manner. The whole forum is about trying to have the last word in petty semantic arguments. Pizza Planet and Parsifal exemplify that principle in this thread. There have been so many things that have disproved FET now that there's no other argumental tack they can take. Sad.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #89 on: December 29, 2010, 08:24:47 AM »
I have already explained this, because the term "using setting circles" is a summary of:
I have set up my telescope with proper polar alignment, navigated from one known star to another known star by using right ascension and declination coordinates, and found that what the telescope ends up pointed at agrees in practice with what theory predicts it should. I have done this many times. So have thousands of others.
Method of verification explained. You will now accept my word for it.

I've done it too. I got an A in that class  ;D
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.