Rainbows. Yeah, those.

rainbows occur.

fact.

the theory of bendy light (which, by the way, everyone on this site has backwards from what would actually make sense) could never in a miillion years result in rainbows. both in the version that could make sense and in the version everyone here believes. they simply would not happen.

so why this?

Refraction.

ITT: OP doesn't know how what causes rainbows to appear.

no. i't jsu that with bendy light, the refraction would be extreme to the point that you would see perhaps two colors if you were lucky. rather then the entire visible spectrum, often.

no. i't jsu that with bendy light, the refraction would be extreme to the point that you would see perhaps two colors if you were lucky. rather then the entire visible spectrum, often.

Er, what?

Rainbows are caused by refraction. Refraction exists in FET.

for the movement of the sun over the flat earth to simulate such effects as sunsets with the sizes this site provides, there has to be a certain degree of refraction. it's a pretty insane degree. to the point it would render rainbows invisible.

or, if you beleive in a different idea, why do supermassive rainbows mlike pictured below have a perfectly circular arc if the higher up light is coming from, the more bent it is?



im simplifying the math, as those who beleive the earth is flat clearly dont understand three dimensional space very well. if you follow the accepted view of reality then my explaination obviously is flawed but i am having to base this on flawed logic.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that rainbows are round because earth is round?

Or are you saying that a ray coming from the sun can't reach an angle to make a rainbow? In that case, they can. How they do that varies from model to model.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that rainbows are round because earth is round?

Or are you saying that a ray coming from the sun can't reach an angle to make a rainbow? In that case, they can. How they do that varies from model to model.

no, im not saying that lol.


not saying that either. im saying that they wouldnt occur as they observably do every day.

Quote from: darthmarus on December 26, 2010, 02:57:10 PM

not saying that either. im saying that they wouldnt occur as they observably do every day.

Pray tell, why? I think they would, and they do.

look up refraction before you incorporate it into your FE theory.

you'll automatically ignore anything i say so look it up yourself.

look up refraction before you incorporate it into your FE theory.

you'll automatically ignore anything i say so look it up yourself.

I'm familiar with refraction. How does it disprove FET?

Quote from: Ungoliant on December 26, 2010, 03:21:08 PM

I'm familiar with refraction. How does it disprove FET?

This, plus you've already made it painfully obvious you don't understand EA theory.

In numerous threads, mind you. You just keep spamming the same claim everywhere.

UR A TOWEL

UR A TOWEL

Review the rules linked in a post at the top of each forum.  Low content posting in the upper forums may get you banned.

rainbows occur.

fact.

the theory of bendy light (which, by the way, everyone on this site has backwards from what would actually make sense) could never in a miillion years result in rainbows. both in the version that could make sense and in the version everyone here believes. they simply would not happen.

so why this?

Miracles.

This Earth is a sphere, why do you guys argue about this? This is ridiculous. Yes the Flat Earth society believes that its flat, but when you try to argue with them it gives them advantage over you. All planets in this universe are spherical. Do flat worlds exist? Yes they do, but they are not in our universe, they are in another dimension of space/time.

I am a RE person but even I agree that if bent light existed it would refract in a very similar if not identical way to straight light. I cant see what this guy is getting at.

Quote from: darthmarus on December 26, 2010, 05:21:09 PM

UR A TOWEL

Review the rules linked in a post at the top of each forum.  Low content posting in the upper forums may get you banned.

That did actually make me laugh out loud, so perhaps we sould give him a break.

Quote from: darthmarus on December 26, 2010, 05:21:09 PM

UR A TOWEL

Review the rules linked in a post at the top of each forum.  Low content posting in the upper forums may get you banned.

That post contained more content than his other claims.

Quote from: darthmarus on December 26, 2010, 05:21:09 PM

UR A TOWEL

Review the rules linked in a post at the top of each forum.  Low content posting in the upper forums may get you banned.

Then why don't you ban yourself? 

Quote from: John Davis on December 26, 2010, 05:45:37 PM

Quote from: darthmarus on December 26, 2010, 05:21:09 PM

UR A TOWEL

Review the rules linked in a post at the top of each forum.  Low content posting in the upper forums may get you banned.

Then why don't you ban yourself? 

OMG AN ORIGINAL POST.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE GOOD ONE

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily RET vs. FET.  I think he's just saying that rainbows shouldn't be possible (as observed) if Bendy Light existed (as described by FE'ers). 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily RET vs. FET.  I think he's just saying that rainbows shouldn't be possible (as observed) if Bendy Light existed (as described by FE'ers). 

I think what everyone is saying though is that they would act identically and he hasn't shown why they would not given either situation.

Quote from: Hessy on January 05, 2011, 09:56:02 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily RET vs. FET.  I think he's just saying that rainbows shouldn't be possible (as observed) if Bendy Light existed (as described by FE'ers). 

I think what everyone is saying though is that they would act identically and he hasn't shown why they would not given either situation.

Well, FE'ers seem to through around Bendy Light to explain a number of different things.  But to do this, they have to give it multiple properties for different instances... I guess he just doesn't see how rainbows exist if Bendy Light is real, seeing as how it appears to skew and distort so many other things in FET.

Quote from: John Davis on January 05, 2011, 05:57:26 PM

Quote from: Hessy on January 05, 2011, 09:56:02 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily RET vs. FET.  I think he's just saying that rainbows shouldn't be possible (as observed) if Bendy Light existed (as described by FE'ers). 

I think what everyone is saying though is that they would act identically and he hasn't shown why they would not given either situation.

Well, FE'ers seem to through around Bendy Light to explain a number of different things.  But to do this, they have to give it multiple properties for different instances... I guess he just doesn't see how rainbows exist if Bendy Light is real, seeing as how it appears to skew and distort so many other things in FET.

I don't hold bendy light is a true theory.  However, I don't see where it has different properties in different instances. 

Fun Fact:
Rainbows Aren't Semi-circular, they're Circular

Fun Fact:
Rainbows Aren't Semi-circular, they're Circular

Agreed, I have seen a full circle rainbow.

Fun Fact:
Rainbows Aren't Semi-circular, they're Circular

Fun fact:
You really, really, really need to revise your use of capital letters.

Fun fact:
You really, really, really need to revise your use of capital letters.

*Sigh* Look, You're the only person who seems to give a damn. and besides its Habit.

Right?  Kids these days and their newfangled "keyboard" devices.