# Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)

• 99 Replies
• 15015 Views

#### Skeleton

• 956
• Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #90 on: July 16, 2011, 11:36:14 AM »
ITT: Skeleton is so ready to prove us wrong... after dinner... tomorrow... next week.

I was at work when I posted that. You wouldnt know what work is as you are so full of pent up rage and bile that no sane employer would take you on.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

#### whatnewguy

• 64
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #91 on: July 25, 2011, 10:39:51 PM »
Maybe I'm just new here, but the amount of talking past one another going on here is just...

The problem here is that trig isn't using the navigational sense of "east" that Thork seems to be using.  Yes, Thork, if you travel east and continue to adjust your bearing such that you are moving eastward (where east is defined as 90 deg. clockwise from north), then you will indeed go in a circle.  In this sense, continuing eastward until you reach the sun does indeed show that the sun rises in the east in the example under discussion.

What you seem to be missing is that if you remain in one spot and measure east, then travel in a straight line in that direction *without* re-checking your compass, you won't be traveling east anymore.  You'll be heading somewhat south of east:

http://imgur.com/uQLtc

Thus, if the sun lies above the earth along a navigationally eastward path from your current location, if you wanted to travel in a straight line to the sun's current location you would not travel east.  You would, in the situation drawn up and debated so far, begin to travel at a nearly northeasterly direction -- but you would not continue to move in that same direction according to the compass (even though you would be moving in a straight line, as I already showed).

So, measuring direction from a stationary location and reckoning in a straight line, a sunrise caused by the FE-prescribed mechanisms would appear to occur to the northeast.  That is to say, an observer reckoning the position of the sun against a compass would see a sunrise occur somewhere in the northeast.  An observer traveling eastward and adjusting his bearing such that he continues moving eastward would also find himself approaching the sun -- but note that he would not be moving in a straight line along the surface of the flat earth.

If that isn't doing the trick for you, think of it another way.  Bill the observer sets up a giant tower at his location, say somewhere in the continental U.S.  Jack the observer sets up a similar tower somewhere such that the time difference between Bill and Jack puts Bill at exactly sunrise when Jack is at exactly noon.  The towers are high enough that no intermediate obstacles such as buildings or mountains will get in the way -- and of course, the earth is flat so the curvature of the surface does not pose a problem.

Bill and Jack are also located on the same line of latitude, and conveniently both are located directly below the current path of the sun in the seasonal cycle as predicted by FE.  When it is noon for Jack the sun will be directly overhead (90 deg. angle from the earth's surface) and when it is noon for Bill, the sun will be directly overhead.  Again, conveniently both are located latitudinally such that the sun rises at this point in the year directly to the east (as opposed to somewhat south, as is observed in many northern locations).

In previous years, Bill and Jack have tested their locations navigationally by traveling eastward or westward respectively, and have both confirmed that maintaining an east or west compass heading will result in travel to the other's tower.

One day, Bill and Jack decide to perform an experiment to test the validity of the FE model.  At sunrise, Bill shines a high-powered laser directly towards the sun's location on the horizon.  By previous observation, I'm sure everyone reading this can confirm that the direction Bill will be shining his laser is east.

Now, what do you think Jack will observe?  Bill shining his laser will not result in Jack recording a laser beam at his tower, unless I missed something in the physics-related FE info that causes light to bend around Earth's north pole.  In fact, Jack would only observe a laser strike if Bill were to shine his light somewhat to the north of east from his tower.

From this, we can conclude the following:  If the earth is in fact flat, and the proposed model of solar motion were true, then we would observe the sun rising to the northeast (approximately).  Because we consistently and universally observe that the sun does not rise to the northeast, one or both of those theories must be false.

#### PizzaPlanet

• 12171
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #92 on: July 25, 2011, 11:29:04 PM »
I was at work when I posted that. You wouldnt know what work is as you are so full of pent up rage and bile that no sane employer would take you on.
ITT: Skeleton is still so ready. It just so happens that he's too busy throwing insults right now. Unfortunately, he forgot to lurk and his insults don't make much sense, as they contradict reality.
hacking your precious forum as we speak

?

#### The Knowledge

• 2391
• FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #93 on: July 26, 2011, 01:33:13 PM »
I was at work when I posted that. You wouldnt know what work is as you are so full of pent up rage and bile that no sane employer would take you on.
ITT: Skeleton is still so ready. It just so happens that he's too busy throwing insults right now. Unfortunately, he forgot to lurk and his insults don't make much sense, as they contradict reality.

Looking at your post history, you do look quite rude a lot of the time. Just sayin'.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #94 on: August 04, 2011, 05:18:30 AM »
What you seem to be missing is that if you remain in one spot and measure east, then travel in a straight line in that direction *without* re-checking your compass, you won't be traveling east anymore.  You'll be heading somewhat south of east:
Who said east was a straight line? If you travel in a straight line setting off from east on a round earth, you end up in space.

North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

and
Quote from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/east
The cardinal point on the mariner's compass 90° clockwise from due north and directly opposite west.
Clockwise. No mention of straight lines.

Thus, if the sun lies above the earth along a navigationally eastward path from your current location, if you wanted to travel in a straight line to the sun's current location you would not travel east.
East is not a straight line.

You are assuming you can see the sun all the way to the ice wall. You cannot. When you are in the USA you do not see the sun rise over Europe. You see it when it is much closer than that to you. Once it has manoeuvred far around its track to be considered East.

Consider you are at the end of the track, you might only see the sun rise a short while before the arrow head. Then it is rising in East of you.

Assuming you see it at all parts of its journey is silly. In that case it would never be night.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 05:20:32 AM by Thork »

?

#### momentia

• 425
• Light abhors a straight line.
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #95 on: August 04, 2011, 08:30:39 AM »
FE'ers:
I had this in another thread, but that thread has been overrun by people arguing about GPS, and it is now more applicable here.

I have shown that the following 5 premises are logically inconsistent:

1) The earth is a flat disk ~12,150 miles in radius.
2) The sun is ~3000 miles high constantly. (the actually height doesn't matter, since the general shape is there same no matter what.)
3) The azimuth/inclination data is accurately taken (Easily verifiable, done many times) where I live.
4) Light travels in a straight line.
5) The sun goes in a circle around the north pole. (I used a radius of ~6000 miles, doesn't matter much what radius it actually is.)

Here, I show that 1,2,4,5 implies not 3.

Assume the earth is flat, along with premises 2,4,5

First I want to note that the only major difference in the sun's path for different people on the same day is their radius  from the north pole. This follows from radial symmetry of the sun's path.

I decided to plot lines describing the position of the sun (azimuth/inclination only, plotted on a hemisphere) over the course of a day. Each "pringle" is a theoretical observed path of the sun from a different radius from the north pole, from radius 0 to radius 12000, every 1000 miles. Now, my calculation is independent of my position on earth.

I had the path of the sun be a circle above above the equator (which happens on the equinox).  Somewhere on this plot is the approximate path of the FE sun across the sky for every point on an FE earth.

However, the observed path of the sun (at an equinox) is the circle angled from the plane. This means that there is nowhere on an FE earth that I could observe what the sun does right outside my window.

Thus, 1,2,4,5 implies not 3, since the true sun path where I am is not a possibility anywhere on a flat earth.

However, since 3 is indisputable, either 1,2,4, or 5 is not true.
To maintain a FE:
1. must obviously be true.
2 and 5 must be true due to radial symmetry. (Again, the actual height and radius don't matter at all. the results the same.)

Therefore, in an FE model, 4 must be untrue.
In other words, light must not go in a straight line.

Since calculations for the height of the sun are based on straight lines and trigonometry, FE has no idea where the sun actually is, and has no model
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 02:38:04 PM by momentia »

?

#### whatnewguy

• 64
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #96 on: August 04, 2011, 01:52:40 PM »
Who said east was a straight line? If you travel in a straight line setting off from east on a round earth, you end up in space.

None of this conjecture takes place on a round Earth.  If you travel in a straight line on a flat Earth, you will be able to continue in that exact same direction until you hit the icewall.  By definition, a line that lies within a plane will never leave that plane.

I also never once said that east was a straight line.  The section you quoted here, if you read it carefully, says that you pick a direction to travel and go in a straight line once your direction has been set.  Just because you start moving east, doesn't mean you continue moving east -- but it does mean that you continue moving in the direction that was measured as "east" from your initial position, which is a straight line.

You keep digging at the distinction between cardinal directions and straight lines, which makes me think that you didn't really read what you are responding to.  I never implied that traveling in a straight line is equivalent to traveling eastward.  In fact I specifically noted the fact that if you *begin* on an eastward path and continue in a straight line, you would no longer be traveling eastward.  Look at the picture I linked in my post, it demonstrates this point very well.

You are assuming you can see the sun all the way to the ice wall. You cannot. When you are in the USA you do not see the sun rise over Europe. You see it when it is much closer than that to you. Once it has manoeuvred far around its track to be considered East.

[picture]

Consider you are at the end of the track, you might only see the sun rise a short while before the arrow head. Then it is rising in East of you.

Assuming you see it at all parts of its journey is silly. In that case it would never be night.

In order for the sun to appear to rise directly to the east if it were to travel as your model predicts, It would have to be almost directly overhead before you observed it rising.  While your model is easy to reconcile with a northern latitude observation (the sun rises to the south-east and moves across the southern half of the sky before setting), any latitude near the sun's path is going to have problems with observation matching the proposed motion of the sun.

Further, this is all ignoring the proposed mechanism for sunrise/set under the FE model.  From what I understand, the appearance of the sun rising above the ground is from a parallax distortion caused by a combination of things.  The sun's spotlight-like nature means that its light would only be viewed by those beneath its cone of light; this, combined with its receding into the distance causes the appearance of the sun falling beneath the horizon.

These two effects cannot both coincide with an observation that the sun does not rise to the north-east.  As I said before, one or the other must be wrong if you wish to maintain a flat Earth.  The only possible way to reconcile everything that you are saying is true, is to introduce some mechanism which causes a very extreme bending of the sun's light into very strange patterns.

edit:  To be fair, the bendy light thing has been mentioned numerous times by FErs and is probably a result of an inquiry similar to the results discussed in this thread.  If I'm not mistaken, the idea of Aetheric Edification is related, but I haven't really been able to find any clear information in this regard.  All I'm really saying, is that without some sort of light-bending mechanism the proposed model of the Sun-Earth system in FE is inconsistent with observation.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2011, 04:07:42 PM by whatnewguy »

?

#### momentia

• 425
• Light abhors a straight line.
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #97 on: August 04, 2011, 11:39:54 PM »
edit:  To be fair, the bendy light thing has been mentioned numerous times by FErs and is probably a result of an inquiry similar to the results discussed in this thread.  If I'm not mistaken, the idea of Aetheric Edification is related, but I haven't really been able to find any clear information in this regard.  All I'm really saying, is that without some sort of light-bending mechanism the proposed model of the Sun-Earth system in FE is inconsistent with observation.

Very true, all we've done is show that light HAS to bend (significantly) in any FET theory.
However, that opens a whole new set of possibilities.

In fact with bendy light, I can claim the earth to be pretty much any shape I want it to be.
Some ideas:

The inside or outside of the following shapes (excluding the circles at the bottom and/or top):

This i like:

?

#### General Disarray

• Official Member
• 5039
• Magic specialist
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #98 on: August 04, 2011, 11:53:13 PM »
I'm not sure why some FE'ers are so averse to the concept of bendy light, Tom Bishop's  version of perspective and John Davis' "aetheric eddification" (its main competitors) are the exact same thing.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

#### whatnewguy

• 64
##### Re: Another cute drawing! (I win, you lose)
« Reply #99 on: August 05, 2011, 12:55:47 AM »
I'm not sure why some FE'ers are so averse to the concept of bendy light, Tom Bishop's  version of perspective and John Davis' "aetheric eddification" (its main competitors) are the exact same thing.

I'm not really clear on the details of AE, is there some thread somewhere that properly explains the concept?  I have been unable to find any.

As far as the aversion to bendy light, I expect it's the same reason that RE'ers are loathe to accept such a concept.  That is to say, it is entirely counter-intuitive for one, and for another any experiment you could possibly design that has a verifiable light source will show light moving in straight lines (or refracted by prisms or prism-like circumstances, such as in some of Rowbotham's experiments).

I emphasize "verifiable" here because FE supporters like to tout the value of zeteticism, but in topics such as these they seem fond of abandoning the noble virtues of the discipline in favor of blind conjecture despite previous documentation and evidence.  Specifically in this context, it is not possible for a zetetic to cite the difference between the Sun's apparent and actual position as data (real or hypothetical) because it is not possible to *ever* know the Sun's actual position if bending light is able to universally and unfailingly confound observers into seeing the Sun where it is not.

The only way to properly introduce a bendy light theory is to create something that requires conditions found only in areas that are impossible to achieve for experimentation, such as those surrounding the celestial gearing or those which exist in the upper atmosphere near the sun and moon.  If light could be observed to bend under less specialized circumstances, it is very unlikely that nobody would have measured this happening by happenstance or in experiments.