Disprove RET

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on July 01, 2011, 02:33:34 PM

Good.  Do you intend on posting your results for peer review?

I already posted the results.

Quote from: berny_74 on July 01, 2011, 02:42:50 PM

One thing, Rowbotham's results were contested and considered inconclusive when done with multiple observers.  Nor did he publish pictures.  And where are your pictures?

Berny
A picture is worth a thousand words.

I didn't say anything about pictures.

No you didn't, you posted your conclusion, but no evidence that you ever even conducted an experiment.

Quote from: sillyrob on July 01, 2011, 08:11:41 AM

I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.

Because it's incorrect.

Can you provide something to back that up?

I have performed the experiment myself and my results matched Rowbotham's results.

Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?

Looking out of my window shows a sharp horizon across the sea rather than one that fades away gradually through the atmosphere. That is what I would expect to see on a round earth, not a flat one. Duh.

How does RET explain the lack of atmosphere? I am breathing air right now.

Quote from: Skeleton on June 27, 2011, 07:35:30 PM

Looking out of my window shows a sharp horizon across the sea rather than one that fades away gradually through the atmosphere. That is what I would expect to see on a round earth, not a flat one. Duh.

How does RET explain the lack of atmosphere? I am breathing air right now.

There is no lack of atmosphere, the atmosphere simply curves down and out of sight instead of being visible as a mist, as FET would suggest

There is no lack of atmosphere, the atmosphere simply curves down and out of sight instead of being visible as a mist, as FET would suggest

What?

Quote from: Anythingispossible on July 01, 2011, 10:51:26 PM

There is no lack of atmosphere, the atmosphere simply curves down and out of sight instead of being visible as a mist, as FET would suggest

What?

Ok, let me put it this way. If this earth is a plane, without obstruction, we should be able to see it in it's entirety. The reason we cannot, according to FET, is because our view of it becomes increasingly obstructed by the atmosphere the further we are from it. The effect, in a sense, would be akin to trying to view an object that is normally in sight on a foggy day, where it is no longer visible. However, when looking at the horizon, this is not the case, as their is a clear line where the sky and the ground meet, and the view of this line is not obstructed.

If this earth is a plane, without obstruction, we should be able to see it in it's entirety.

What?

The reason we cannot, according to FET, is because our view of it becomes increasingly obstructed by the atmosphere the further we are from it.

No.

If this earth is a plane, without obstruction, we should be able to see it in it's entirety.

Quote

What?

Ok sorry, stupid post on my part, we should be able to see much more of it than we can.

The reason we cannot, according to FET, is because our view of it becomes increasingly obstructed by the atmosphere the further we are from it.

Quote

No.

Why, then, can we not see many kilometers further than is observed?

Ok sorry, stupid post on my part, we should be able to see much more of it than we can.

No, that would be silly.

Why, then, can we not see many kilometers further than is observed?

Because of electromagnetic acceleration.

Because of electromagnetic acceleration.

This theory has been disproved, and also has been unable to make accurate predictions, and has no evidence to back it up, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45272.0

Because of electromagnetic acceleration.

The only reason EM acceleration exists as a theory is to back up FET. So much for the zetetic approach...

This theory has been disproved

Nope.

Quote from: Anythingispossible on July 01, 2011, 11:31:06 PM

This theory has been disproved

Nope.

Well it looks like you will not be convinced, carry on

Quote from: Anythingispossible on July 01, 2011, 11:31:06 PM

This theory has been disproved

Nope.

Any experiment that you can do or is just more mind games?

Berny
Doesn't know why.

Any experiment that you can do or is just more mind games?

To disprove it? Probably not, but people still claim they can.

Quote from: berny_74 on July 02, 2011, 05:00:10 AM

Any experiment that you can do or is just more mind games?

To disprove it? Probably not, but people still claim they can.

How about a replicable experiment where you can observe results that satisfy your idea that light will bend.

Berny
Awaiting the laser light shows and cursing public Library keyboards.

Quote from: Anythingispossible on July 01, 2011, 11:31:06 PM

This theory has been disproved

Nope.

Ah the usual response to the TRUE STATEMENT that bent light has been disproved... and its ALWAYS Pizza Plant doing the reality denial.
As Pizza Plant knows, bent light has been disproved by the observation that effects it predicts do not happen. This response by me here is, if I can remember correctly, the FOURTH time I have pointed this out to him, and the reason why has been summarized by me twice and by another poster prior to that. I dont wish to explain it again, merely I want to draw attention to Pizza Plants bold faced lie that it has not been disproved. He has yet to refute the disproof. His next move, rather than to refute the disproof which has been posted many times, will be to claim that no such disproof was posted. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you wish to check the veracity of my statement and see that Pizza Plant lies, you have only to look back through my post history to see it. I thank you.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on July 01, 2011, 11:38:07 PM

Quote from: Anythingispossible on July 01, 2011, 11:31:06 PM

This theory has been disproved

Nope.

Ah the usual response to the TRUE STATEMENT that bent light has been disproved... and its ALWAYS Pizza Plant doing the reality denial.
As Pizza Plant knows, bent light has been disproved by the observation that effects it predicts do not happen. This response by me here is, if I can remember correctly, the FOURTH time I have pointed this out to him, and the reason why has been summarized by me twice and by another poster prior to that. I dont wish to explain it again, merely I want to draw attention to Pizza Plants bold faced lie that it has not been disproved. He has yet to refute the disproof. His next move, rather than to refute the disproof which has been posted many times, will be to claim that no such disproof was posted. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you wish to check the veracity of my statement and see that Pizza Plant lies, you have only to look back through my post history to see it. I thank you.

We're well aware of Pizza Planet's blatant lies. In fact, if it weren't for his lies then FET wouldn't exist anymore. It's this perpetual ignorance that keeps these forum-dwellers from coming to grips with having failed science back in school.

tl;dr
Where's the disproof?

In most Bendy Light threads in this part of the forum. But it'll be too long for you to read so just take our word for it.

tl;dr
Where's the disproof?

Read ENaG.  Rowbotham disproved bendy light with his Bedford Levels experiment.

tl;dr
Where's the disproof?

If you read it, it tells you where to find the disproof. 
But yeah, if that's too long youll never struggle through the whole disproof and are doomed to live in ignorance until someone translates it into text speak for you.

Eclipse


Selenelion


During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above. Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round. The sooner we wake up to the fact that globularism  has its root in the heresies of the Pythagoreans, the better.

During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.

You mean like this?...

Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round.

You're kinda right... The assumption that the Sun's rays arrive parallel is an approximation. In reality, of course, they don't arrive parallel. But it's a very good assumption for small areas on the Earth's surface (like a city, or small country even).
But when you consider systems like the whole Earth or the Earth-Sun-Moon system, you can't assume they're parallel, which is why you get umbra/penumbra pictures like this:




Another note on how the almost parallel approximation effects Eratosthenes' famous proof:
Eratosthenes assumed that the Sun's rays arrive approximately parallel, but of course they don't. However, this doesn't mean that the entire proof is incorrect. It only means that he was off by a small amount, proportional to the magnitude of the error. And since the error in the assumption is very small (because the Sun is very far away), the error in the result is small.
This is easy to see if you draw it out yourself, which I suggest you do before claiming this is nonsense. I'll put one up if you really don't feel like drawing it, but the best editor I have is MS Paint, so that'll be a pain...

Thanks

During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.

You forgot to allow for approximately 1/2 degree of elevation gained by atmospheric refraction.  You also forgot that, although possible at every lunar eclipse, a selenelion is rarely seen or documented.

Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round.

Eratosthenes assumed that the sun's rays were essentially parallel, not exactly parallel.  Also, it's nice to see that you acknowledge that the roundess of the earth is a fact.

Quote from: Ski on July 05, 2011, 04:00:42 PM

During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.

You forgot to allow for approximately 1/2 degree of elevation gained by atmospheric refraction.  You also forgot that, although possible at every lunar eclipse, a selenelion is rarely seen or documented.

This is nonsense.  Even assuming your (highly-convenient) refraction argument is true, the moon and sun are roughly half a degree wide, this still leaves both the sun and moon half obscured by the horizon, which is not what has been reported.

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2011, 07:06:40 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 05, 2011, 04:00:42 PM

During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.

You forgot to allow for approximately 1/2 degree of elevation gained by atmospheric refraction.  You also forgot that, although possible at every lunar eclipse, a selenelion is rarely seen or documented.

This is nonsense.  Even assuming your (highly-convenient) refraction argument is true, the moon and sun are roughly half a degree wide, this still leaves both the sun and moon half obscured by the horizon, which is not what has been reported.

That 1/2 degree of refraction is for each the sun and moon, so it is possible.

Do you have any links to documented reports?  Remember that a true selenelion (moon in total eclipse and sun both completely above the horizon) is a fleeting event.  Even when it is observed, it only lasts for a few moments.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Recent enough?

It is clear the moon is well above the horizon, not touching it. There is simply no way that the earth is causing this eclipse. Nor does your alleged "half a degree of refraction" come close to explaining the observed. The selenhelion lasted well over an hour; it was not a "fleeting moment".

They will argue "but where is the sun in that picture?"

If that's the shadow of the earth on the moon, then the sun must be an equal distance below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon. Hence, since it is not pitch dark, this clearly cannot be true. A stunning disproof of RET.