The moon

  • 87 Replies
  • 13025 Views
?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #60 on: October 13, 2011, 11:35:49 AM »
Except that all the photons are initially travelling downwards.  there's no variation in direction at this point.  So if direction of bending is dependent on variations in initial direction, then light should always bend in the same direction.  Yet it does not.  Why?

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The moon
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2011, 11:38:03 AM »
Except that all the photons are initially travelling downwards.  there's no variation in direction at this point.  So if direction of bending is dependent on variations in initial direction, then light should always bend in the same direction.  Yet it does not.  Why?
Rubbish. Shrimp on the moon's surface emit light in all directions. Just because the surface of a glowing disc is flat does not mean that the light should always travel straight down.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #62 on: October 13, 2011, 11:39:49 AM »
Light has to go straight down in order for the moon to consistently appear circular from all directions.  My diagram illustrates this.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The moon
« Reply #63 on: October 13, 2011, 11:41:43 AM »
Light has to go straight down in order for the moon to consistently appear circular from all directions.  My diagram illustrates this.
But my diagram doesn't.

Re: The moon
« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2011, 12:52:07 PM »
Light has to go straight down in order for the moon to consistently appear circular from all directions.  My diagram illustrates this.
But my diagram doesn't.

The light from the moon would have to have to expand far more vertically than it would horizontally in order to look round and also the same size everywhere on earth if it was a disk viewed from an angle.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 12:57:20 PM by 29silhouette »

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The moon
« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2011, 01:47:05 PM »
Why are people still trying to explain things with bendy light when it's been totally disproved? Bendy light doesn't work, Xenu. You should read the forum a bit more thoroughly.

*sigh*
You're using quotes from yourself as a source now? In my opinion, no REer has been able to convincingly disprove bendy light. Just saying "read the forum lol" is not evidence.


Nope, I don't make that fallacy at all. This method of debunking bendy light in fact relies on the very idea that the light would appear to come from somewhere else. You really are a bit dim aren't you? Let me clout you with the idea some more, see if it sinks in:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.

This is easy to find if you use the search function. Numerous other posters have linked to it from many other threads.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2011, 01:58:22 PM »
Light has to go straight down in order for the moon to consistently appear circular from all directions.  My diagram illustrates this.
But my diagram doesn't.
Why compare to your diagram when it fails to maintain the circularity of the moon?

Re: The moon
« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2011, 06:52:25 PM »
It does flatten out as it goes over the horizon.  Flattens quite a bit.  One has to be high up to see it though.  I was flying to Korea at night and watched the moon set.  The extra amount of atmosphere I was looking at it through also made it look increasingly red the closer it got to the the horizon.  Also, no, I couldn't see the horizon itself, it was night.
As you go higher the moon begins to look squashed, I know. That's because it's flat.
Actually it looked round for quite a while.  It wasn't until it was close to the horizon that it began to take on a red tint and then squish down.  The width still being the same of course.  Once it started to flatten, it didn't take very long to become almost completely flattened while fading away.

It didn't have a perfect oval shape either as one would expect when looking at a disk from different angles.  The bottom started to flatten first while the top retained more of a curve.
This is a mirage affect.

http://kingeider.blogspot.com/2011/03/super-moon-in-mirage.html

It only happens occasionally, and the phenomena is insufficient to explain a flat earth moon setting which more than 90% of the time does not set in this distorted shape.


That only occurs when you are at high altitude. Othewise, bendy light accounts for the round shape.
Um.. it's a well known and well documented phenomena, photographed and observed at ground level more often than at height.  You also get the same effect on the sun. 


That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Also a mirage, as you can see the bottom half of the moon starts to distort as soon as it becomes obscured by the atmosphere, while the top half remains undistorted.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2011, 07:35:25 PM »
That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Perspective results in ellipses, which these are not.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The moon
« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2011, 11:55:36 AM »
That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Perspective results in ellipses, which these are not.
They look very much like ellipses to me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41964
Re: The moon
« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2011, 02:04:04 PM »
That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Perspective results in ellipses, which these are not.
They look very much like ellipses to me.
Ellipses are symmetrical.  Those images of the moon are not symmetrical.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #71 on: October 14, 2011, 07:41:18 PM »
That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Perspective results in ellipses, which these are not.
They look very much like ellipses to me.
Then you don't know what an ellipse is.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The moon
« Reply #72 on: October 15, 2011, 01:48:11 AM »
That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Perspective results in ellipses, which these are not.
They look very much like ellipses to me.
Ellipses are symmetrical.  Those images of the moon are not symmetrical.
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.

Re: The moon
« Reply #73 on: October 15, 2011, 02:44:59 AM »
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.

Can you prove that statement? Please provide testable evidence. I will not accept images (that can be faked by FErs) or vague descriptions which cannot be tested.

Re: The moon
« Reply #74 on: October 15, 2011, 03:38:37 AM »
That's just a mirage. In this series of pictures, taken from a high-altitude balloon, with the image on the left being taken from the highest altitude, you can observe the changing perspective on the moon from a rising object.

Perspective results in ellipses, which these are not.
They look very much like ellipses to me.
Ellipses are symmetrical.  Those images of the moon are not symmetrical.
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.
But only on the part of the moon obscured by the atmosphere, conforming to the rules of refraction for inversions and matching the predictions of Round Earth Theory...
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The moon
« Reply #75 on: October 15, 2011, 04:56:13 AM »
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.

Can you prove that statement? Please provide testable evidence. I will not accept images (that can be faked by FErs) or vague descriptions which cannot be tested.

I note with interest that having made the bold remark that nobody has disproved bendy light, following my posting of the disproof Xenu has refrained from commenting on it. Yet he continues to cite bendy light. I wonder, Xenu, how you explain the observations in the disproof?
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The moon
« Reply #76 on: October 15, 2011, 05:48:50 AM »
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.

Can you prove that statement? Please provide testable evidence. I will not accept images (that can be faked by FErs) or vague descriptions which cannot be tested.

I note with interest that having made the bold remark that nobody has disproved bendy light, following my posting of the disproof Xenu has refrained from commenting on it. Yet he continues to cite bendy light. I wonder, Xenu, how you explain the observations in the disproof?

The lengths of the three red lines are the same. You have not disproved bendy light.

Re: The moon
« Reply #77 on: October 15, 2011, 06:07:40 AM »
Actually they aren't, but I'll grant you the inaccuracy of the diagram on the basis that you were using it as a guide only.  But you might want to firm it up a bit.  Hint, Google Sketch Up...
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Lord Xenu

  • 1029
  • ALL HAIL XENU!
Re: The moon
« Reply #78 on: October 15, 2011, 06:13:15 AM »
Actually they aren't, but I'll grant you the inaccuracy of the diagram on the basis that you were using it as a guide only.  But you might want to firm it up a bit.  Hint, Google Sketch Up...
I made it in five minutes in paint, what do you expect?

Re: The moon
« Reply #79 on: October 15, 2011, 07:42:11 AM »

The lengths of the three red lines are the same. You have not disproved bendy light.

Images you construct in Paint do not prove bendy light. We need you to submit an actual experiment that shows evidence of bendy light. Otherwise, you do not have a testable theory. Especially since you include an untestable conspiracy into the hypothesis. Remove the conspiracy and you may actually have a valid scientific claim from which I would be more than happy to disprove.

Remember.... bendy light is a hypothesis you have made and therefore the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders. It is not our responsibility to prove you right or wrong.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The moon
« Reply #80 on: October 15, 2011, 09:21:11 AM »
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.

Can you prove that statement? Please provide testable evidence. I will not accept images (that can be faked by FErs) or vague descriptions which cannot be tested.

I note with interest that having made the bold remark that nobody has disproved bendy light, following my posting of the disproof Xenu has refrained from commenting on it. Yet he continues to cite bendy light. I wonder, Xenu, how you explain the observations in the disproof?

The lengths of the three red lines are the same. You have not disproved bendy light.

WTF are you talking about? That is irrelevant. See the paragraph I quoted with the step by step guide to why bendy light fails like a bitch.  imade no comment on your stupid red lines.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: The moon
« Reply #81 on: October 15, 2011, 09:47:32 AM »
Actually they aren't, but I'll grant you the inaccuracy of the diagram on the basis that you were using it as a guide only.  But you might want to firm it up a bit.  Hint, Google Sketch Up...
I made it in five minutes in paint, what do you expect?
I said I'm granting you the inaccuracy of the diagram, in otherwords I'm not rejecting the validity of your argument just because the diagram isn't precise.  It would make a good FAQ item however if you bothered to do a more precise version, but if you don't want to that's fine by me.  No skin off my nose.

Mind you, the diagram needs more elucidation to make a good case.  For example, what's the refraction index of light through the aether such that it will bend at the required degree to make the Moon look round to any person no matter where they are located?  Given the postulate that the Moon is 3000 miles away, then that should be easy to calculate. 

However, and this is where your drawing needs a lot of work; Unless the person viewing the Moon has eyes the same diameter as the moon, the lines from opposite edges of the moon will have to bend at different rates.  This means the refractive index is variable depending on distance.  Okay so that's not so hard to grasp.  But the problem is that one of the lines of light from the closest edge will have to bend more than the line at the furthest edge, which means that the refractive index needed is less over greater distance.  But then let's consider the person directly underneath the moon.  The lines of travel of a lightbeam need to be less refracted, otherwise the moon would seem further away when directly overhead than when on the horizon (not explained by the myth that the moon is bigger on the horizon: it isn't, as proven by measuring it in photographs or with angular distance).  So we have a refractive index that goes from being greater on the nearer edge than the farther edge of the moon for the person not directly under the moon, to being lesser for the person directly underneath the moon.

See in the below diagram; For the guy at AB, curved line AD has to be the same length as curved line BF (AD has to be the same length as AE), therefore curved  line AD has to be bent more than BF. 

Yet for the guy GH directly underneath the moon, lines GD and HF need to be much less bent  than curved line AD in order to allow the moon to appear the same size for both GH and AB. 

If you can come up with an explanation for this anomaly you might be closer to explaining bendy light, though that doesn't explain the other problems with bendy light.


20111016-001 by max_wedge, on Flickr
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 09:50:26 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #82 on: October 15, 2011, 11:40:05 AM »


The lengths of the three red lines are the same. You have not disproved bendy light.
The red line for image A is not perpendicular to the average vector of the light rays for that image.

Re: The moon
« Reply #83 on: October 15, 2011, 12:25:40 PM »
You haven't proven it, too.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: The moon
« Reply #84 on: October 15, 2011, 02:12:41 PM »
Actually they aren't, but I'll grant you the inaccuracy of the diagram on the basis that you were using it as a guide only.  But you might want to firm it up a bit.  Hint, Google Sketch Up...
I made it in five minutes in paint, what do you expect?
I said I'm granting you the inaccuracy of the diagram, in otherwords I'm not rejecting the validity of your argument just because the diagram isn't precise.  It would make a good FAQ item however if you bothered to do a more precise version, but if you don't want to that's fine by me.  No skin off my nose.

Mind you, the diagram needs more elucidation to make a good case.  For example, what's the refraction index of light through the aether such that it will bend at the required degree to make the Moon look round to any person no matter where they are located?  Given the postulate that the Moon is 3000 miles away, then that should be easy to calculate. 

However, and this is where your drawing needs a lot of work; Unless the person viewing the Moon has eyes the same diameter as the moon, the lines from opposite edges of the moon will have to bend at different rates.  This means the refractive index is variable depending on distance.  Okay so that's not so hard to grasp.  But the problem is that one of the lines of light from the closest edge will have to bend more than the line at the furthest edge, which means that the refractive index needed is less over greater distance.  But then let's consider the person directly underneath the moon.  The lines of travel of a lightbeam need to be less refracted, otherwise the moon would seem further away when directly overhead than when on the horizon (not explained by the myth that the moon is bigger on the horizon: it isn't, as proven by measuring it in photographs or with angular distance).  So we have a refractive index that goes from being greater on the nearer edge than the farther edge of the moon for the person not directly under the moon, to being lesser for the person directly underneath the moon.

See in the below diagram; For the guy at AB, curved line AD has to be the same length as curved line BF (AD has to be the same length as AE), therefore curved  line AD has to be bent more than BF. 

Yet for the guy GH directly underneath the moon, lines GD and HF need to be much less bent  than curved line AD in order to allow the moon to appear the same size for both GH and AB. 

If you can come up with an explanation for this anomaly you might be closer to explaining bendy light, though that doesn't explain the other problems with bendy light.


20111016-001 by max_wedge, on Flickr

This adds weight to the disproof of bendy light through amount of displacement being proportional to viewed altitude. Good work.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: The moon
« Reply #85 on: October 15, 2011, 03:18:41 PM »
The red line for image A is not perpendicular to the average vector of the light rays for that image.

Again, an image you make in Paint does not add support to your idea. The FE theory that you all propose is not a valid scientific theory. You include an untestable conspiracy to your hypothesis to try and discredit the usage of Antarctica to disprove your notions of a flat Earth. This fact removes your hypothesis from being a testable theory to one that is only an idea. This flat Earth idea is yours, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. It is not our responsibility to prove you right or wrong. Provide evidence and testable experiments, or accept the fact that FE is merely just a poorly thought out idea. The RErs base their assumptions on valid testable hypotheses, which qualifies it as a valid theory. Therefore, debating or trying to convince you otherwise is pointless : )

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: The moon
« Reply #86 on: October 15, 2011, 08:10:31 PM »
The red line for image A is not perpendicular to the average vector of the light rays for that image.

Again, an image you make in Paint does not add support to your idea. The FE theory that you all propose is not a valid scientific theory. You include an untestable conspiracy to your hypothesis to try and discredit the usage of Antarctica to disprove your notions of a flat Earth. This fact removes your hypothesis from being a testable theory to one that is only an idea. This flat Earth idea is yours, so the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. It is not our responsibility to prove you right or wrong. Provide evidence and testable experiments, or accept the fact that FE is merely just a poorly thought out idea. The RErs base their assumptions on valid testable hypotheses, which qualifies it as a valid theory. Therefore, debating or trying to convince you otherwise is pointless : )

I was specifying how the diagram failed to illustrate the preservation of the circularity of the moon through bendy light.  It is not my diagram.  I am not a flat earther.  Please "lurk moar" as they say.

Re: The moon
« Reply #87 on: October 16, 2011, 01:06:43 AM »
They are almost symmetrical. Any asymmetry is caused by the effect of bendy light.

Can you prove that statement? Please provide testable evidence. I will not accept images (that can be faked by FErs) or vague descriptions which cannot be tested.

I note with interest that having made the bold remark that nobody has disproved bendy light, following my posting of the disproof Xenu has refrained from commenting on it. Yet he continues to cite bendy light. I wonder, Xenu, how you explain the observations in the disproof?

The lengths of the three red lines are the same. You have not disproved bendy light.
Doesn't matter what the length of the three red lines are, the light is coming from an angle.  What if that angled bit of light is hitting the face of a mountain.  That red line will now be shorter.  The moon will look like an ellipse regardless.

Tape a round piece of paper over the end of a flashlight and hang the flashlight pionting straight down.  From underneath it looks like a circle.  From an angle it looks like an ellipse.

Bendy light hasn't even been proven to begin with that I'm aware of.