bendy light

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 03, 2011, 04:13:06 PM

Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?

Because it has never been shown to...?

Ahem:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/sunbend.html

Quote from: c47man on May 03, 2011, 06:02:50 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 03, 2011, 04:13:06 PM

Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?

Because it has never been shown to...?

Ahem:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0

http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/sunbend.html

This is because the Earth is curved, and the atmosphere curves with it

Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".

Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".

Who said it was?

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on May 03, 2011, 04:13:06 PM

Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?

Because it has never been shown to...?

Oh! So we agree that light refracts, that's fine..I'm sorry. I could've told everybody that a long time ago, though. What was the point of this thread? 

Quote from: Around And About on May 03, 2011, 06:14:25 PM

Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".

Who said it was?

Horatio.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.

Quote from: parsec on May 03, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.

This is true, but not relevant.

Quote from: Around And About on May 03, 2011, 06:59:53 PM

Quote from: parsec on May 03, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.

This is true, but not relevant.

It is quite relevant.

Anyhow, how is the star's rotations relative to your latitude an optical phenomenon (in the sense that I think you mean to say illusion)

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole.  In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator.  Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.

Berny
Most FE'ers are NorthCentrics anyhow

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 03, 2011, 06:19:40 PM

Quote from: Around And About on May 03, 2011, 06:14:25 PM

Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".

Who said it was?

Horatio.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0

I never said that.

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2011, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 03, 2011, 06:19:40 PM

Quote from: Around And About on May 03, 2011, 06:14:25 PM

Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".

Who said it was?

Horatio.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0

I never said that.

You said: "Phil Plait supports bendy light", then you linked to an article describing atmospheric refraction.  What other possible conclusion was I supposed to draw?

Quote from: parsec on May 03, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole.  In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator.  Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.

No, it does not mean that at all. How did you conclude this?

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 09:31:16 PM

Quote from: parsec on May 03, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole.  In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator.  Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.

No, it does not mean that at all. How did you conclude this?

What other conclusion was he supposed to come to?

Quote from: parsec on May 04, 2011, 06:48:01 AM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 09:31:16 PM

Quote from: parsec on May 03, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole.  In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator.  Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.

No, it does not mean that at all. How did you conclude this?

What other conclusion was he supposed to come to?

Please don't answer questions directed to other with another question. I am curious what is the line of reasoning that led him to write that particular paragraph.

Please don't answer questions directed to other with another question. I am curious what is the line of reasoning that led him to write that particular paragraph.

And I'm trying to figure out what line of reasoning you used when you said "This is again an optical phenomenon."  Vague responses like that are not very helpful in moving the discussion forward.

Quote from: parsec on May 04, 2011, 06:52:43 AM

Please don't answer questions directed to other with another question. I am curious what is the line of reasoning that led him to write that particular paragraph.

And I'm trying to figure out what line of reasoning you used when you said "This is again an optical phenomenon."  Vague responses like that are not very helpful in moving the discussion forward.

So, why then, did you quote the whole discussion with berny and not ask the question by quoting only my post?

You must be aware by this point that parsec has never been interested in being helpful, or moving a discussion forward.

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 11:27:43 AM

so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?

Based on your posts so far, I'd say learning a lot more about physics would be a step in the right direction.

Please don't make low-content posts in the serious debate forums

Please don't make low-content posts in the serious debate forums

See you in a few days.

Quote from: Around And About on May 03, 2011, 06:59:53 PM

Quote from: parsec on May 03, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on May 03, 2011, 08:31:20 AM

And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.

This is again an optical phenomenon.

In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.

This is true, but not relevant.

Yes, EXACTLY like your comment here:

And yet, the apparent altitude of Polaris seems to decrease as one approaches the Equator from the North.

Completely irrelevant to the disproof of bent light, which does not require observations to be made from different points on the earths surface. Observations from one latitude are quite sufficient to gather data that will let the theory of bent light die a fiery screaming death, dwindling until all that remains is a crappy ember with "Parsec was here" written on it, and a faint smell of troll piss.

Completely irrelevant to the disproof of bent light,

who said i wanted to disprove bendy light?!

which does not require observations to be made from different points on the earths surface. Observations from one latitude are quite sufficient to gather data that will let the theory of bent light die a fiery screaming death,

a) since when being on the same latitude implies you are at the same point?
b) do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

dwindling until all that remains is a crappy ember with "Parsec was here" written on it, and a faint smell of troll piss.

please refrain from your literary efforts as they induce a vomit reflex in the rest of us.