Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)

  • 75 Replies
  • 8758 Views
?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« on: November 21, 2011, 02:40:34 PM »
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.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2011, 02:41:16 PM »
To counter claims that this is never posted. I suggest it be stickied and put in the FAQ.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2011, 02:46:04 PM »
To counter claims that this is never posted. I suggest it be stickied and put in the FAQ.

Agreed
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2011, 07:27:15 PM »
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
This is also true without EAT, and it applies even when directly overhead. The velocity of light is very much finite.

2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
This is also true without EAT. It's called parallax.

3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
Not at all. Care to explain why you'd think so?

4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
Perhaps it can be expressed in one way or another. Any thought can be expressed. However, the thought itself is pretty wrong, so hey.

(some steps omitted due to reasoning above)

11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Apparently you're unaware of Hubble's Law. If the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same, then we should flush everything we know about astronomy down the toilet.

(FAO Pizza Planet)
The best way to gain my attention is to PM me. I don't read new threads too often - I'm not very good at multitasking, and I'm stuck with several threads full of RE'ers saying the same thing over and over again. So yeah, if you'd like me specifically to address something, just drop me a PM or an e-mail - preferably without calling anyone an idiot. It ruins the spirit of discussion.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 07:29:55 PM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2011, 07:31:42 PM »
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Apparently you're unaware of Hubble's Law. If the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same, then we should flush everything we know about astronomy down the toilet.
Last I knew, FET already flushes everything we know about astronomy down the toilet, so why should Hubble's Law be any different?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2011, 07:34:55 PM »
Last I knew, FET already flushes everything we know about astronomy down the toilet, so why should Hubble's Law be any different?
Sure. However, it's the supposed experimental observation that contradicts Hubble's Law here. I propose that the observation has been made up, or that it disproves FE and RE alike.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2011, 07:45:23 PM »
Last I knew, FET already flushes everything we know about astronomy down the toilet, so why should Hubble's Law be any different?
Sure. However, it's the supposed experimental observation that contradicts Hubble's Law here. I propose that the observation has been made up, or that it disproves FE and RE alike.
When did he say anything about measuring the Doppler shift of Polaris or Vega?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2011, 09:04:35 PM »
When did he say anything about measuring the Doppler shift of Polaris or Vega?
You're the only person who said anything about measuring the Doppler shift of anything so far.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2011, 05:49:43 AM »
When did he say anything about measuring the Doppler shift of Polaris or Vega?
You're the only person who said anything about measuring the Doppler shift of anything so far.
Actually, you did seeing as Hubblel's Law deals with the Doppler shift of galaxies and their approximate distances from earth.  Upon closer examination, Hubble's Law doesn't seem to have much to do with individual stars within our galaxy so I'm not quite sure why you brought it up.
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2011, 08:55:36 AM »
The differences in velocities are measured through Doppler shift, yes. However, how they're measured is irrelevant. It's the fact that they are measured that has substance here.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2011, 11:05:01 AM »
What makes you believe that Polaris and Vega are moving relative to each other and/or the Earth and that the movement is measurable by the causal observer?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2011, 12:17:55 PM »
What makes you believe that Polaris and Vega are moving relative to each other and/or the Earth and that the movement is measurable by the causal observer?
Hubble's Law. Of course, you're the only person here talking about "casual observers", so I've thoroughly ignored that bit.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2011, 12:33:12 PM »
What makes you believe that Polaris and Vega are moving relative to each other and/or the Earth and that the movement is measurable by the causal observer?
Hubble's Law. Of course, you're the only person here talking about "casual observers", so I've thoroughly ignored that bit.
Are you more than a casual observer of the stars?
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2011, 12:41:35 PM »
Are you more than a casual observer of the stars?
No (I'm much less than that - I don't observe stars. I find it quite boring.), but I also don't claim that I've measured distances of said stars from the Earth. The Knowledge claims they "have been measured", and that they contradict RET. I'm merely holding him to his own words until he amends them.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2011, 12:49:20 PM »
Look again.  He said that the distance between Vega and Polaris is the same.  He never said anything about their distance from the earth.
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2011, 12:56:08 PM »
Look again.  He said that the distance between Vega and Polaris is the same.  He never said anything about their distance from the earth.
You're right, I misspoke. However, this is no less inconsistent with Hubble's Law.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2011, 01:53:08 PM »
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
This is also true without EAT, and it applies even when directly overhead. The velocity of light is very much finite.

2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
This is also true without EAT. It's called parallax.

3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
Not at all. Care to explain why you'd think so?

4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
Perhaps it can be expressed in one way or another. Any thought can be expressed. However, the thought itself is pretty wrong, so hey.

(some steps omitted due to reasoning above)

11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Apparently you're unaware of Hubble's Law. If the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same, then we should flush everything we know about astronomy down the toilet.

(FAO Pizza Planet)
The best way to gain my attention is to PM me. I don't read new threads too often - I'm not very good at multitasking, and I'm stuck with several threads full of RE'ers saying the same thing over and over again. So yeah, if you'd like me specifically to address something, just drop me a PM or an e-mail - preferably without calling anyone an idiot. It ruins the spirit of discussion.

To address your points:
1. The paragraph is not referring to the difference in position between an object as seen and its true position as being different due to the travel time of the light. Parsec refers to the difference in position that would be seen between a ray of light that bends and a ray of light that does not bend. Obviously. Lose a point for not understanding the context of "position".
2. Untrue. Without bendy light, objects at an equal distance from an observer appear to be where they are, regardless of whether they are directly overhead or off to the side. Parallax is something completely different and is inapplicable in a situation with one stationary observer, such as in this disproof. Lose a point for not understanding what parallax is.
3. In bendy light, light travelling vertically shows an object to be where it is. Light travelling horizontally shows an object to be elsewhere than it really is. An object that appears to be somewhere other than it really is can be described as having had its position adjusted. An object that appears to be where it really is can be described as not having had its position adjusted. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky. Perhaps you should message Parsec and request he doesn't use such big, complicated words as "more" and "higher" that obviously confuse you. Lose a point for not being able to follow this incredibly simple logic. Lose another point because you're only pretending you can't follow it.
4. Your response is meaningless. Parsec's fourth point is merely a summary of the third point. Lose a point for a meaningless response.
11. He's clearly talking about angular distance as seen from earth. You are pretending you think he means physical distance in space between the two stars (which, incidentally, you can't disprove is not always the same under FET physics: FET says that it is.) Lose a point for being too thick to understand this. Lose another point for only pretending to be too thick to understand this. Lose a third point for mixing and matching RE and FE laws governing celestial bodies.
Overall score for Planet Pizzazz: -8
BTW, posting a thread here is just as good as messaging you. You responded - QED. In fact your response is not necessary, the posting of the argument is there as a reference for you as you so often bang on about how you never see a disproof of bendy light.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2011, 01:57:27 PM »
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
This is also true without EAT, and it applies even when directly overhead. The velocity of light is very much finite.

2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
This is also true without EAT. It's called parallax.

3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
Not at all. Care to explain why you'd think so?

4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
Perhaps it can be expressed in one way or another. Any thought can be expressed. However, the thought itself is pretty wrong, so hey.

(some steps omitted due to reasoning above)

11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Apparently you're unaware of Hubble's Law. If the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same, then we should flush everything we know about astronomy down the toilet.

(FAO Pizza Planet)
The best way to gain my attention is to PM me. I don't read new threads too often - I'm not very good at multitasking, and I'm stuck with several threads full of RE'ers saying the same thing over and over again. So yeah, if you'd like me specifically to address something, just drop me a PM or an e-mail - preferably without calling anyone an idiot. It ruins the spirit of discussion.

To address your points:
1. The paragraph is not referring to the difference in position between an object as seen and its true position as being different due to the travel time of the light. Parsec refers to the difference in position that would be seen between a ray of light that bends and a ray of light that does not bend. Obviously. Lose a point for not understanding the context of "position".
2. Untrue. Without bendy light, objects at an equal distance from an observer appear to be where they are, regardless of whether they are directly overhead or off to the side. Parallax is something completely different and is inapplicable in a situation with one stationary observer, such as in this disproof. Lose a point for not understanding what parallax is.
3. In bendy light, light travelling vertically shows an object to be where it is. Light travelling horizontally shows an object to be elsewhere than it really is. An object that appears to be somewhere other than it really is can be described as having had its position adjusted. An object that appears to be where it really is can be described as not having had its position adjusted. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky. Perhaps you should message Parsec and request he doesn't use such big, complicated words as "more" and "higher" that obviously confuse you. Lose a point for not being able to follow this incredibly simple logic. Lose another point because you're only pretending you can't follow it.
4. Your response is meaningless. Parsec's fourth point is merely a summary of the third point. Lose a point for a meaningless response.
11. He's clearly talking about angular distance as seen from earth. You are pretending you think he means physical distance in space between the two stars (which, incidentally, you can't disprove is not always the same under FET physics: FET says that it is.) Lose a point for being too thick to understand this. Lose another point for only pretending to be too thick to understand this. Lose a third point for mixing and matching RE and FE laws governing celestial bodies.
Overall score for Planet Pizzazz: -8
BTW, posting a thread here is just as good as messaging you. You responded - QED. In fact your response is not necessary, the posting of the argument is there as a reference for you as you so often bang on about how you never see a disproof of bendy light.

Science isn't a competition.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2011, 02:26:07 PM »

Science isn't a competition.

Bendy light isn't science.  Trolling isn't science. Derailing logical steps by pretending to misunderstand them isn't science. :P
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2011, 03:02:16 PM »
Look again.  He said that the distance between Vega and Polaris is the same.  He never said anything about their distance from the earth.
You're right, I misspoke. However, this is no less inconsistent with Hubble's Law.
If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET. 
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2011, 06:31:32 PM »
If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.

On what do you base this outrageous claim?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2011, 08:15:09 PM »
If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.

On what do you base this outrageous claim?

The fact that Edwin Hubble was an RE'er and made his observations and calculations from an RE perspective.
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.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2011, 08:55:58 PM »
If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.

On what do you base this outrageous claim?

The fact that Edwin Hubble was an RE'er and made his observations and calculations from an RE perspective.

Fallacy of composition, Genetic fallacy

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2011, 09:15:58 PM »
If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.

On what do you base this outrageous claim?

The fact that Edwin Hubble was an RE'er and made his observations and calculations from an RE perspective.

Fallacy of composition, Genetic fallacy

Are you suggesting that Edwin Hubble's obesrvations and calculations make the least bit of sense from a FET perspective?  If so, I'd love to see how.  For instance, how does FET explain that the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy suggests that it's approaching us at the rate of 100 - 140 km/s while being only about 5000 km or so away from us?
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2011, 09:45:02 PM »
If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.

On what do you base this outrageous claim?

The fact that Edwin Hubble was an RE'er and made his observations and calculations from an RE perspective.

Fallacy of composition, Genetic fallacy

Are you suggesting that Edwin Hubble's obesrvations and calculations make the least bit of sense from a FET perspective?  If so, I'd love to see how.  For instance, how does FET explain that the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy suggests that it's approaching us at the rate of 100 - 140 km/s while being only about 5000 km or so away from us?

I disagree that the only way FET is possible is if the stars are 5000 km or so away from us.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2011, 11:44:20 PM »
The Knowledge, I think you'll find that angular and linear distances of the stars are very closely related to one another. If one of them changes, then usually so does the other.
That is unless you claim that the velocity at which they move away from the Earth each other (edit: fix'd) is exactly proportional to the sine of the angle, in which case I await your proof.

If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.
Once again (I've already told you this. I'm not sure why you're pretending I didn't) - I'm pointing out a contradiction in this supposed evidence of RET. I am assuming RET as default and applying a simple proof of contradiction. Assuming RET by default does, indeed (shock, horror), imply !FET by default. However, since this is discussion is about an internal contradiction of RET, FET is quite irrelevant.

markjo, why do you derail threads?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 03:58:33 AM by PizzaPlanet »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2011, 01:53:34 AM »
The Knowledge, I think you'll find that angular and linear distances of the stars are very closely related to one another. If one of them changes, then usually so does the other.
That is unless you claim that the velocity at which they move away from the Earth is exactly proportional to the sine of the angle, in which case I await your proof.

If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.
Once again (I've already told you this. I'm not sure why you're pretending I didn't) - I'm pointing out a contradiction in this supposed evidence of RET. I am assuming RET as default and applying a simple proof of contradiction. Assuming RET by default does, indeed (shock, horror), imply !FET by default. However, since this is discussion is about an internal contradiction of RET, FET is quite irrelevant.

markjo, why do you derail threads?

First, As far as we know Hubble's law is caused by expansion of the universe, which would increase distances, but preserve angles. (since the distance between us and the stars also increases as well as the distance between them)

Second, Hubble's effect is small, so it is only observable with very distant objects not in the same local structure. Vega and Polaris are in the galaxy.

Continue without this argument.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12255
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2011, 03:56:43 AM »
First, As far as we know Hubble's law is caused by expansion of the universe, which would increase distances, but preserve angles.
That is assuming that they only move away from the Earth, but not each other, ie. the Earth is the centre of the universe.

Second, Hubble's effect is small, so it is only observable with very distant objects not in the same local structure. Vega and Polaris are in the galaxy.
Like most things in RE when they start becoming self-contradictory. They're there, they're just suddenly unobservable.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41935
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2011, 06:48:32 AM »
I disagree that the only way FET is possible is if the stars are 5000 km or so away from us.

Then perhaps you should develop a FE model where Hubble's Law does apply because none of the current ones do.

The Knowledge, I think you'll find that angular and linear distances of the stars are very closely related to one another. If one of them changes, then usually so does the other.
That is unless you claim that the velocity at which they move away from the Earth each other (edit: fix'd) is exactly proportional to the sine of the angle, in which case I await your proof.

If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.
Once again (I've already told you this. I'm not sure why you're pretending I didn't) - I'm pointing out a contradiction in this supposed evidence of RET. I am assuming RET as default and applying a simple proof of contradiction. Assuming RET by default does, indeed (shock, horror), imply !FET by default. However, since this is discussion is about an internal contradiction of RET, FET is quite irrelevant.

What contradiction might that be?  Are you suggesting that Polaris and Vega are moving away from each other at such a rate that the angular distance between them as observed from earth will be measurably different sometime in the near future?  Perhaps you would be better off trying to explain why FET works rather that why you believe that RET fails.

markjo, why do you derail threads?

You are the one who brought up Hubble's Law in a thread about bendy light, not me.
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2011, 08:32:08 AM »
I disagree that the only way FET is possible is if the stars are 5000 km or so away from us.

Then perhaps you should develop a FE model where Hubble's Law does apply because none of the current ones do.

Hubble's Law isn't something that "applies" so much as it is something that "we observe".  It is therefore consistent with any FET model.  Sometimes I think you try to make things too complicated.  Also I'm far from the first person to suggest that the stars are actually much farther away in FE than is proposed in the standard model.  Lurk moar.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?