Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.

  • 725 Replies
  • 115660 Views
*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #90 on: December 29, 2010, 01:22:56 PM »
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.
Which can be very easily done.

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.
Excellent. You have finally made a claim. I guess you fell asleep while drawing the diagrams that will accompany your proof, which I eagerly await.

Edit: Oh, and you have yet to point out the relevancy of all this to distances measured on the Earth, of course. Since you've been rambling about setting circles for quite long now, I'm sure you're more than ready to do that.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2010, 01:24:56 PM by PizzaPlanet »
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 #91 on: December 29, 2010, 03:33:29 PM »
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.
Which can be very easily done.

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.
Excellent. You have finally made a claim. I guess you fell asleep while drawing the diagrams that will accompany your proof, which I eagerly await.

Edit: Oh, and you have yet to point out the relevancy of all this to distances measured on the Earth, of course. Since you've been rambling about setting circles for quite long now, I'm sure you're more than ready to do that.

Having provided a link to a video as well as a detailed description, a diagram would add no further value than if you asked for a diagram of "how to drive a car" for example. A visual guide and worded description are more useful.
Because you again don't seem to be able to make the mental leap to see how this is relevant to distances measured on the earth, I'm going to give you a clue and say look at the title of the thread. The clue is in the last two words. Don't strain your brain (though I suspect there's no danger of that, what with the "mental thermostat" you appear to have which cuts it off when neural activity gets too intense).
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #92 on: December 29, 2010, 04:04:19 PM »
I don't know what to say so I'll remind people that I posted an irrelevant video and throw some insults/ad hominems.
You do that, bro. Keep me updated.
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 #93 on: December 29, 2010, 04:47:20 PM »
I don't know what to say so I'll remind people that I posted an irrelevant video and throw some insults/ad hominems.
You do that, bro. Keep me updated.

I didn't actually post the link to the video :P

TROLL HARDER.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #94 on: December 29, 2010, 08:07:04 PM »
I didn't actually post the link to the video :P

TROLL HARDER.
You also didn't post a picture of your telescope. It's just amazing how many things you didn't do!
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #95 on: December 29, 2010, 08:29:50 PM »
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.
You definitely do not understand science, but continue to play scientist from time to time.

Of course "no matter how many times a prediction comes true, you can never be certain that it will always hold true". That is not even an interesting issue for the scientists, and it is not even mentioned directly or indirectly in the Scientific Method. That is a difference between mathematics or philosophy and science: absolute knowledge is not even a goal to strive for. Nobody is looking at every star in the universe to see if it also generates gravitational pull. Nobody is looking at the sky from every square meter of Earth to see if the cloudless sky is blue at noon in every place on Earth. And that has not impeded the advancement of science.

Science is not about absolute truths, it is about solid, and if possible, overwhelming evidence. It is not about the philosophical quest for absolute knowledge on any specific question.

Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #96 on: December 29, 2010, 08:52:17 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.
I did.


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.
And that's what your diagram seems to show, light hitting at an angle and making things look longer, and it's all based on unproven Bendy Light doing more twists and turns than Lee Harvey Oswalds magic bullet and then somehow aligning for every person on the planet to make the sun look normal, and yet when it hits the surface of the unproven flat earth at an angle distances appear longer (but only near the rim) and you use Google Maps to confirm this varied distance phenomenom, to which I explained Google Maps and also pointed out that it contradicts the flat earth map you used.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #97 on: December 29, 2010, 09:21:38 PM »
And that's what your diagram seems to show, light hitting at an angle and making things look longer, and it's all based on unproven Bendy Light doing more twists and turns than Lee Harvey Oswalds magic bullet and then somehow aligning for every person on the planet to make the sun look normal, and yet when it hits the surface of the unproven flat earth at an angle distances appear longer (but only near the rim) and you use Google Maps to confirm this varied distance phenomenom, to which I explained Google Maps and also pointed out that it contradicts the flat earth map you used.
So you agree that you're rambling about shit that doesn't apply here. Great.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #98 on: December 30, 2010, 08:41:16 PM »
And that's what your diagram seems to show, light hitting at an angle and making things look longer, and it's all based on unproven Bendy Light doing more twists and turns than Lee Harvey Oswalds magic bullet and then somehow aligning for every person on the planet to make the sun look normal, and yet when it hits the surface of the unproven flat earth at an angle distances appear longer (but only near the rim) and you use Google Maps to confirm this varied distance phenomenom, to which I explained Google Maps and also pointed out that it contradicts the flat earth map you used.
So you agree that you're rambling about shit that doesn't apply here. Great.
Haha what?

Your original post;
flat earth image     -check
bendy light diagram-check
google maps image -check

The subject of my posts;
flat earth image     -check
bendy light diagram-check
google maps image -check

Your rebuttal:  "I didn't zoom in, you did."

I rest my case.

 

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #99 on: December 31, 2010, 04:10:51 AM »
Yeah, your post concerns a different flat Earth model, a diagram which must clearly not be my diagram (would you like to reveal the mystery?), and a random Google Maps fact that has nothing to do with my claims.
Sure, it does contain supposedly similar terms. It's just that the posts have nothing to do with each other.
Feel free to rest your case as much as you want; you haven't stated a case a yet, though.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #100 on: January 05, 2011, 10:00:02 AM »
Also, bendy light is not proven, and is contrary to the idea that "it's flat because it looks flat".
False.

I think/hope that what he's trying to say is Bendy light is not proven to bend as you FE'ers claim it does, nor have you conducted experiments to test how it bends, to what degree, etc.

EDIT: By the way, that was a very pretty diagram in the OP.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #101 on: January 06, 2011, 02:45:23 AM »
EDIT: By the way, that was a very pretty diagram in the OP.
Aww, thank you.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #102 on: January 06, 2011, 04:03:12 AM »
EDIT: By the way, that was a very pretty diagram in the OP.
Aww, thank you.

I live to flatter  :-*

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2011, 08:00:47 AM »
I still want to know the area of Colorado as based on your maps :(
what's the point of a model if it doesn't reflect reality, unless you think that land surveying is a false art

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #104 on: January 07, 2011, 09:39:29 AM »
I still want to know the area of Colorado as based on your maps :(
what's the point of a model if it doesn't reflect reality, unless you think that land surveying is a false art

Unrelated to the thread. 

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #105 on: January 07, 2011, 12:04:55 PM »
I still want to know the area of Colorado as based on your maps :(
what's the point of a model if it doesn't reflect reality, unless you think that land surveying is a false art
The distances, and thus areas, are exactly the same as "in RET". Please read the OP.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2011, 06:34:38 AM »
I still want to know the area of Colorado as based on your maps :(
what's the point of a model if it doesn't reflect reality, unless you think that land surveying is a false art
The distances, and thus areas, are exactly the same as "in RET". Please read the OP.
The OP specifically says that Bendy Light resolves this evident problem of every FE theory, so the problem of the area of Colorado, or of Australia in both maps is relevant and critical.

Light is not the only way to measure distances and areas. Millions of people are traveling the roads of every continent and planning their long trips carefully, then checking their progress hour by hour with the odometer, which does not use light, and with their watches, which do not use light, bendy or otherwise.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2011, 06:32:05 PM »
...
Distances are measured primarily based on what we see. Our definition of distance is based upon that. And yes, the "problem" (there's no problem) of Colorado is relevant, which is why I addressed it. Please, read posts before replying to them. It's awkward this way.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2011, 07:24:22 PM »
...
Distances are measured primarily based on what we see. Our definition of distance is based upon that. And yes, the "problem" (there's no problem) of Colorado is relevant, which is why I addressed it. Please, read posts before replying to them. It's awkward this way.
Exactly how does the odometer of a car "see" what it is measuring?

Seeing is used in some, not all the methods for measuring.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #109 on: January 08, 2011, 08:50:35 PM »
...
Distances are measured primarily based on what we see. Our definition of distance is based upon that. And yes, the "problem" (there's no problem) of Colorado is relevant, which is why I addressed it. Please, read posts before replying to them. It's awkward this way.
Exactly how does the odometer of a car "see" what it is measuring?

Seeing is used in some, not all the methods for measuring.
The "distortion" of the FE map will not affect an odometer's results, for it is just an optical illusion. Your point?
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2011, 02:14:53 AM »
I still want to know the area of Colorado as based on your maps :(
what's the point of a model if it doesn't reflect reality, unless you think that land surveying is a false art

Unrelated to the thread. 

so its unrelated that I have evidence that distances on RE and FE not consistent no thanks to bendy light?

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2011, 02:20:24 AM »
...
Distances are measured primarily based on what we see. Our definition of distance is based upon that. And yes, the "problem" (there's no problem) of Colorado is relevant, which is why I addressed it. Please, read posts before replying to them. It's awkward this way.

lrn2angular sector plz.
mapping on a circular surface vs a spherical one is differrent. I've shown before via integration that if colorado is on a circular surface, its are is off by nearly 40%.

And ignoring the whole compass, angular sector thing, you should first learn how land is surveyed before you try to argue it away. light has no bearing on how odometers in cars are consistent with the RET predicted size of colorado. Unless you can create a flat earth model that accurately predicts the shape of Colorado, it is inferior.

...
Distances are measured primarily based on what we see. Our definition of distance is based upon that. And yes, the "problem" (there's no problem) of Colorado is relevant, which is why I addressed it. Please, read posts before replying to them. It's awkward this way.
Exactly how does the odometer of a car "see" what it is measuring?

Seeing is used in some, not all the methods for measuring.
The "distortion" of the FE map will not affect an odometer's results, for it is just an optical illusion. Your point?

the distortion of the map? you misunderstand. The point is, that distance is measured by sight and by physically measuring the distance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveying
I guess one question is, do you believe or not, that the area of Colorado is 104,094 sq mi?
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 02:25:35 AM by Thevoiceofreason »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2011, 07:27:14 AM »
lrn2irrelevantstuff plz. Irrelevant irrelevancy of the irrelevant irrelevancy is, in fact, irrelevant. Irrelevantly, one may see the irrelevancy as irrelevant.
Irrelevant. For goodness' sake, read the thread before posting.

I guess one question is, do you believe or not, that the area of Colorado is 104,094 sq mi?
I believe the area of Colorado is 269837 km2, physically speaking.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2011, 11:43:19 AM »
lrn2irrelevantstuff plz. Irrelevant irrelevancy of the irrelevant irrelevancy is, in fact, irrelevant. Irrelevantly, one may see the irrelevancy as irrelevant.
Irrelevant. For goodness' sake, read the thread before posting.

I guess one question is, do you believe or not, that the area of Colorado is 104,094 sq mi?
I believe the area of Colorado is 269837 km2, physically speaking.

I did read the thread, and I'm saying that light has has nothing to do with the matter.
try solving for the area of colorado via polar coordinate integration. you get the wrong answer.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2011, 12:01:52 PM »
I did read the thread, and I'm saying that light has has nothing to do with the matter.
try solving for the area of colorado via polar coordinate integration. you get the wrong answer.
Not if you apply the OP. That's exactly why I keep asking that you read it rather than pretend.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2011, 12:06:48 PM »
I did read the thread, and I'm saying that light has has nothing to do with the matter.
try solving for the area of colorado via polar coordinate integration. you get the wrong answer.
Not if you apply the OP. That's exactly why I keep asking that you read it rather than pretend.

nothing short of saying the geometry of the universe is grossly non euclidean will make up for it.
your argument about bendy light is non sequiter. distances are not an illusion of optics. but a physical fact. again land surveying doesn't only rely on looking of into the distance.
you agree that the area of Colorado is 269837 km^2, so therefore your model has to reflect that. It does not for reasons stated.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 12:13:03 PM by Thevoiceofreason »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2011, 12:22:07 PM »
distances are not an illusion of optics. but a physical fact. again land surveying doesn't only rely on looking of into the distance.
...
...
...
Telling you to read the OP won't help, will it?
The fact that distances are physical and not optical is exactly why the distances remain consistent. Bendy Light affects optics, not physics. Bingo.

your argument about bendy light is non sequiter.
Non-sequitur, and it's not.

you agree that the area of Colorado is 269837 km^2, so therefore your model has to reflect that. It does not for reasons stated.
Blatant falsity.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2011, 08:25:50 PM »

The "distortion" of the FE map will not affect an odometer's results, for it is just an optical illusion. Your point?

UR A TOWEL
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #118 on: January 12, 2011, 02:51:36 AM »
distances are not an illusion of optics. but a physical fact. again land surveying doesn't only rely on looking of into the distance.
...
...
...
Telling you to read the OP won't help, will it?
The fact that distances are physical and not optical is exactly why the distances remain consistent. Bendy Light affects optics, not physics. Bingo.

your argument about bendy light is non sequiter.
Non-sequitur, and it's not.

you agree that the area of Colorado is 269837 km^2, so therefore your model has to reflect that. It does not for reasons stated.
Blatant falsity.

In the OP "The definition of our units of length is at fault - it is an application of optics"
no it is not. length is length is length. a meter in Antarctica is the same as a meter in the arctic circle.


whats a blatant falsity? that if you have a correct model of the world, that it has to effect reality?
that's what a "model" is for. The physical fact is that the approximate area of Colorado is 269837 km^2.
the disk like surface defined by the faq does not predict these result. could you tell me why they don't predict that answer?

and don't tell me that they do, because I've already shown that they don't
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 02:55:06 AM by Thevoiceofreason »

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Distances on RE and FE consistent thanks to bendy light.
« Reply #119 on: January 12, 2011, 05:48:38 AM »
no it is not. length is length is length.
Yes, it is. And it's not. That's exactly the point.

a meter in Antarctica is the same as a meter in the arctic circle.
Physically speaking, not. yes. (Edit: A silly mistake on my behalf.)

whats a blatant falsity? that if you have a correct model of the world, that it has to effect reality?
Out of two sentences, you chose the wrong one. I am beginning to believe that your reading comprehension might be at fault.

that's what a "model" is for. The physical fact is that the approximate area of Colorado is 269837 km^2.
Yes, and yes, physically speaking.

the disk like surface defined by the faq does not predict these result. could you tell me why they don't predict that answer?
The surface does predict this result, it's your proof, based entirely on optics, which does not predict it. Your calculations are not part of FET and should not be treated as such.

and don't tell me that they do, because I've already shown that they don't
No, you've shown that something that doesn't happen doesn't happen. Unfortunately, you did not account for Bendy Light.
If you hold to your logic, you also have to accept my ace disproof of RET:
Since there obviously is no gravity in RET, the Earth cannot be round, because people would float off.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 11:55:12 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)