The problems with bendy light

Quote from: Zogg on October 23, 2011, 11:57:48 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 23, 2011, 09:17:25 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 22, 2011, 07:34:39 AM

If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.

But that's perspective, not EAT

Perspective would make the sun appear 26.5° above the horizon at sunset.
(Not sure what "sunset" is called in FET though, as it can't really "set" 26° above the horizon... "Sunvanish" ?)

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Rowbotham's perspective laws conflict with his own results. I think its safe to say that that invalidates any of his other insane ideas.

Rowbotham's perspective laws conflict with his own results.

No, they don't.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

It is one thing to say this, it is quite another to demonstrate that this statement is correct.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Please quantify perspective by relating the below variables:
H - height of observer
D - distance to observed object
h - height of object that is hidden
m - magnification of lens/telescope used

The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

That's a new one!

You better have a good explaination on this one.

Quote from: Zogg on October 23, 2011, 11:57:48 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 23, 2011, 09:17:25 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 22, 2011, 07:34:39 AM

If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.

But that's perspective, not EAT

Perspective would make the sun appear 26.5° above the horizon at sunset.
(Not sure what "sunset" is called in FET though, as it can't really "set" 26° above the horizon... "Sunvanish" ?)

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Even Rowbotham specifies an minimum angular size limit for ocular resolution.  26 degrees is well within Rowbotham's specified limit of visible angular size/distance.  Just as a reference, 26 degrees is the angular size of a basketball from 1 metre away.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Of course art school perspective is wrong.  It assumes that the earth is an infinte plane.

i think lasers have a special kind of light in them that the other ones dont have

Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.

Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.

That's just a technicality.

Quote from: logicalskeptic on October 24, 2011, 02:05:32 PM

Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.

That's just a technicality.

I'm inclined to agree with logicalskeptic here. Take gravity as an example of something that they disregard. In an effort to make gravity sound ridiculous they call it magical or a figment of our imagination, then they go and imagine universal acceleration in its place. How can you disregard one theory, claiming it has no basis in reality, then replace it with a theory that is at least as implausible.

Quote from: trig on October 18, 2011, 07:24:32 AM

And we are full of verified predictions with both Newton's model and Einstein's model of gravitation.

You're also full of verified counter-examples, as linked before. By what you just said, this disproves the two models as scientific facts, theories and models. I guess you don't have a model, after all.

This answer does not even start to explain how you talk about models and science and don't even know what a model is. If you had ever understood something, you would have not mentioned counter-examples, you would have shown counter-examples of models with the corresponding predictions.

This answer does not even start to explain how you talk about models and science and don't even know what a model is. If you had ever understood something, you would have not mentioned counter-examples, you would have shown counter-examples of models with the corresponding predictions.

So, according to you, if I point out that predictions made by a model are completely unrelated to reality, that doesn't affect the model's validity.
A fairly interesting claim, but I'm not going to waste time discussing it.

Quote from: trig on October 25, 2011, 05:44:40 AM

This answer does not even start to explain how you talk about models and science and don't even know what a model is. If you had ever understood something, you would have not mentioned counter-examples, you would have shown counter-examples of models with the corresponding predictions.

So, according to you, if I point out that predictions made by a model are completely unrelated to reality, that doesn't affect the model's validity.
A fairly interesting claim, but I'm not going to waste time discussing it.

You don't really know what a model is, you don't know what the Scientific Method is so you don't really know what to do with a model, and still you consider yourself an authority  in whether a model is related to reality?

Get real yourself.

I had a model once. She never ate. It was depressing.

You don't really know what a model is, you don't know what the Scientific Method is so you don't really know what to do with a model, and still you consider yourself an authority  in whether a model is related to reality?

Get real yourself.

Isn't a model, where you fly from America east towards Europe, and end up in Africa instead?

Flying directly east into Europe should not be possible. All you Americans will land in Africa, if you fly east directly over the Atlantic.

That's why you have to "curve your path" north east, through Canada, Iceland, Britain, then fly "south east" to Europe. Just like in a FET model where you would fly directly straight, and it would still have your compass point north east then south east.

The FET model is PERFECTLY demonstrated by this. Unless you believe all the planes and air companies in America are owned by me, and force to lie in my name, so they don't lose their jobs?

Or do you believe airplanes are "in on" the conspiracy that is FET? Cos, they aren't. They're normal folk, working for privately owned companies. The End.

I thank you.

Quote from: trig on December 24, 2011, 09:32:08 AM

You don't really know what a model is, you don't know what the Scientific Method is so you don't really know what to do with a model, and still you consider yourself an authority  in whether a model is related to reality?

Get real yourself.

Isn't a model, where you fly from America east towards Europe, and end up in Africa instead?

Flying directly east into Europe should not be possible. All you Americans will land in Africa, if you fly east directly over the Atlantic.

That's why you have to "curve your path" north east, through Canada, Iceland, Britain, then fly "south east" to Europe. Just like in a FET model where you would fly directly straight, and it would still have your compass point north east then south east.

The FET model is PERFECTLY demonstrated by this. Unless you believe all the planes and air companies in America are owned by me, and force to lie in my name, so they don't lose their jobs?

Or do you believe airplanes are "in on" the conspiracy that is FET? Cos, they aren't. They're normal folk, working for privately owned companies. The End.

I thank you.

I think you are not talking about a scientific model, in the sense that is mentioned in the Scientific Method, either.

A model in the terms of the Scientific Method is a mathematical model that gives us predictions, which can in turn be verified to check the validity of the model. In this case, if you calculate the position and orientation of the Earth, and take into account its shape, and consider the stars as placed so far that can always be considered as stationary and in the same direction from Earth, you can calculate the place where an observer on Earth will see the stars (for a given location on Earth and a date and time). Those calculations are your model, the place where the stars should be are the predictions and you can verify the predictions yourself, going out and looking at the sky and comparing it with a star chart, or with the information in any of several sky charting programs.

But please learn some grammar. It is almost impossible to know if you are supporting or criticizing the FE "theories", if you know what a model is, or if you know minimal navigation skills or not.