Phil Plait supports bendy light

Unfortunately for EAT (bendy light), the atmosphere bends light the wrong way.

The Earth’s atmosphere acts like a lens, bending light. Near the horizon this bending effect can be quite large, distorting objects when they rise or set...

This is a well known result. You don't need to say anything about Phil Plait. But this bending isn't at all what FE needs to work.

Unfortunately for EAT (bendy light), the atmosphere bends light the wrong way.

That is assuming the atmoplane is curved. It isn't.

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2011, 05:38:18 PM

Unfortunately for EAT (bendy light), the atmosphere bends light the wrong way.

That is assuming the atmoplane is curved. It isn't.

No, that is assuming that as light travels from the sun, it goes from an optically less dense medium (outer space and the upper atmoplane) to an optically more dense medium (the lower atmoplane) and bends downwards causing the sun to appear higher than it really is (by as much as 1/2 degree or so at sunset).

why do fe'ers feel the need to parade and champion someone when they hear of them agreeing with them in some way? always seeking validation, never content in their views because they know they're as flimsy and unproveable as the God hypothisis

why do fe'ers feel the need to parade and champion someone when they hear of them agreeing with them in some way? always seeking validation, never content in their views because they know they're as flimsy and unproveable as the God hypothisis

Actually it has been shown that REer's champion and boast the historical significance of their past peers, all quoting from the same sources that they have all read, internalized and believed. 

FEer's, when brought together, present a cogent viewpoint based on a reality that accumulates to a point where a claim of victory can even be achieved. 

Actually, most of us just look at pictures of the Earth and say "hey look, it's round, knew that" and get on with our lives without giving it a second thought.



Lovely, isn't it?

So where are all the FE'ers  Earth pictures. After all, you've had just as much time as everyone else has to produce photographs from space to prove your theory? It's not as if rockets and cameras are all that expensive. If there are as many of you as you say there are, how hard would it be to all chip in and produce irrefutable proof of your theory in photographic form?

I don't see why that picture could not be of a disc. I think I may even see the hint of the ice wall at the horizon.

but it is clearly a globe!!!, how can it be a disc? and what is the ice wall?

I don't see why that picture could not be of a disc. I think I may even see the hint of the ice wall at the horizon.

It's called the atmosphere. It's the thing that gravity helps keep on the big round thing and that accelerating through space on a disc wouldn't as it would find the path of least resistance and spill over the edge....

but it is clearly a globe!!!, how can it be a disc? and what is the ice wall?

It's not clear to me, at all.

but it is clearly a globe!!!, how can it be a disc? and what is the ice wall?

It could be a close-up of a globe or a disc. Either, really.

Quote from: re_tard on May 04, 2011, 04:09:08 PM

but it is clearly a globe!!!, how can it be a disc? and what is the ice wall?

It could be a close-up of a globe or a disc. Either, really.

THat's why the landmass is disappearing off towards the edge of the horizon? You'll need to change your maps...

is the disc curved then? that makes sense as I couldn't understand why I couldn't see for ever like in that game Halo where the guy is on a plant that's like a big disc as well, bu the is inside it and shoots teh aliens and doesn't afraid of anything, but he can see right round the disc becasue it is so big and flat

THe disc is, indeed, curved. Whichever direction you go in, it curves all the way round to meet itself...

isn't that a globe you are describing? i thought we were on a disc being pushed by a nice comet, hence the gravity effect?

Comets have a nasty tendency to travel at the same speed. No, Discworld is being pushed by a giant, 20,000 foot long F15 with scale models of Maverick and Goose in the cockpit. It's true, you can't prove it isn't.

Comets have a nasty tendency to travel at the same speed.

Citation?

I don't need one. They have no means of propulsion. Their only means of energy gain is gravitational, and you've already said that a) all the universe is moving at the same accelerative force, and b) that Earth has no gravity. So, unless Earth orbits a far larger body, the comet propelling it has no means of gaining energy, therefore it can't accelerate. You really aren't very good at this.

I don't need one. They have no means of propulsion. Their only means of energy gain is gravitational, and you've already said that a) all the universe is moving at the same accelerative force, and b) that Earth has no gravity. So, unless Earth orbits a far larger body, the comet propelling it has no means of gaining energy, therefore it can't accelerate. You really aren't very good at this.

You are describing theoretical predictions, based on theories that may or may not be valid. Yes, you do need a citation if you claim that the same is true in practice.

I'll provide one if you give a logical, irrefutable, explanation for Earth's supposed continual acceleration.

I'll provide one if you give a logical, irrefutable, explanation for Earth's supposed continual acceleration.

Right after you do that for gravitation.

Stop deflecting and start answering.

Stop deflecting and start answering.

There is no such thing as an "irrefutable" explanation. You can feel free to demand impossibilities all you like; it doesn't mean you're going to be given sensible answers, and it doesn't support your case.

irrefutable

adj. Impossible to refute or disprove

explanation
n.
1. the act or process of explaining
2. a statement or occurrence that explains
3. a clarification of disputed terms or points; reconciliation

No such thing? Hardly, but try and get as close as you can. And stop deflecting and picking up on semantics, yet again. Does no-one on this board actually possess the ability to provide evidence without taking recourse in nitpicking and grammar definitions?

No such thing? Hardly, but try and get as close as you can. And stop deflecting and picking up on semantics, yet again. Does no-one on this board actually possess the ability to provide evidence without taking recourse in nitpicking and grammar definitions?

Evidence isn't what you asked for. If addressing what you asked for and not what you actually meant is nitpicking to you, I suggest you reconsider your debate strategy.

why pick on point liek that which don't matter, you'd be better off just answering the questions he asks, then he'd have nothing more to say as he would have his evidence / proof

Quote from: Ali on May 06, 2011, 05:27:59 AM

No such thing? Hardly, but try and get as close as you can. And stop deflecting and picking up on semantics, yet again. Does no-one on this board actually possess the ability to provide evidence without taking recourse in nitpicking and grammar definitions?

Evidence isn't what you asked for. If addressing what you asked for and not what you actually meant is nitpicking to you, I suggest you reconsider your debate strategy.

I'll reconsider when you provide answers and not pedantry.

I'll reconsider when you provide answers and not pedantry.

I'll provide answers when you ask an answerable question.