Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?

  • 59 Replies
  • 9427 Views
Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« on: December 17, 2011, 03:36:11 AM »
It seems that the main motivation for believing the Earth is flat is that in many places the Earth appears to be flat to the naked eye. 

If one theorizes that the Earth is flat, you need to add to and modify as necessary additional theories to account for additional phenomena.  Nothing wrong with that; any scientific field does the same. 

It seems like some (maybe not all, but some) FEers have concluded that to account for some optical phenomena, light is assumed to be able to bend certain ways.  And there are other additional assumptions that may some plausible to some and implausible to others (NASA and the space program are a hoax and/or a conspiracy, for example).

I guess my main question is, why does FE theory seem like an appealing theory if you have to resort to bendy light?  The main motivation is that the Earth visually appears to be flat, disregarding hills and valleys, but light can bend in the first place?  If you are willing to believe light can bend, would it not be a simpler theory to assume the Earth is mostly round, NASA did in fact send people and craft into space, Antarctica is a large island instead of a wall, stars are actually at least several light-years away, etc., and that bendy light is responsible for the Earth appearing flat in certain locations? 

And in fact, bendy light can be demonstrated in other cases with a light source and a prism, or a tank of water, or a stratified atmosphere.  So why not apply the thumb rule of Occam's Razor, (which is not a proof, I understand, but at best a suggestion to go with the explanation that requires the minimum amount of mental inventions), and go with the idea that Earth is approximate spherical?

Full disclosure: I do already believe in an approximately RE, which you might pick up on reading this post.  But I am genuinely curious, assuming this belief in a FE is not a hoax or an ongoing effort at trolling that just got a life of its own, why FE believers would be willing to go with a theory that seems to me to be much more elaborate and requires more inventions than a RE theory that explains most phenomena fairly easily.

If anyone is interested in replying with a thoughtful counterargument, I'd be happy to hear it.

Adam

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2011, 04:02:38 AM »
Occam's Razor does not apply here. FET is not as predictive or useful as RET. RET wins hands-down. You use OR only when two competing theories are equally predictive and useful, and you need to make the best guess.

Here's an example:
Quote from: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-550192.html
In short, when you hear hoofbeats, you should assume it's horses, not zebras. Or, for that matter, unicorns.

So you by asking about OR with FET and RET overestimate the value of FET.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2011, 04:24:45 AM »
Hi Adam.

The honest answer is that there can't be many people, if any, who know absolutely, 100% for certain, the true nature of the earth.

I, like the vast majority of people in the western world, grew up believing that the earth is a globe. But i was spoon-fed this idea, it's not something that i figured out for myself. I have to admit that i do not know the true nature of the earth.

Applying occam's razor to this situation, in the truest sense that simpler explanations are generaly better than more complex ones, one can only conclude that the earth is indeed flat!  :o

Mizuki x

"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2011, 05:00:21 AM »
Hi Adam.

The honest answer is that there can't be many people, if any, who know absolutely, 100% for certain, the true nature of the earth.

I, like the vast majority of people in the western world, grew up believing that the earth is a globe. But i was spoon-fed this idea, it's not something that i figured out for myself. I have to admit that i do not know the true nature of the earth.

Applying occam's razor to this situation, in the truest sense that simpler explanations are generaly better than more complex ones, one can only conclude that the earth is indeed flat!  :o

Mizuki x

In order for the Earth to be flat, then we must dismiss space flight and account for a huge conspiracy.

But if we use Occam's Razor, we have to conclude that there's no conspiracy (much too complicated, expensive, involving too many people, running on for a too long time).
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2011, 07:58:52 AM »
Hi Adam.

The honest answer is that there can't be many people, if any, who know absolutely, 100% for certain, the true nature of the earth.

I, like the vast majority of people in the western world, grew up believing that the earth is a globe. But i was spoon-fed this idea, it's not something that i figured out for myself. I have to admit that i do not know the true nature of the earth.

Applying occam's razor to this situation, in the truest sense that simpler explanations are generaly better than more complex ones, one can only conclude that the earth is indeed flat!  :o

Mizuki x

In order for the Earth to be flat, then we must dismiss space flight and account for a huge conspiracy.

But if we use Occam's Razor, we have to conclude that there's no conspiracy (much too complicated, expensive, involving too many people, running on for a too long time).

There is a very large amount of evidence to show that the moon landings at least, were faked.

Quite some years before the world-wide-web became a big part of many people's lives, and information on the subject was scarce, i saw David Percy talking in London about the moon landings and how the evidence that NASA have presented for this is quite obviously fake. To say my world was rocked that day, would be a huge understatement. I really didn't want to believe it. But the weight of evidence against NASA's tall stories is huge. But if people want to carry on with the false belief that man has been to the moon, that's fine, i understand entirely why they believe this. People believe all manner of wierd and wonderful things.

As for the fact that there would have to be a conspiracy involving many, many people, this is really not the case. Only the people in the most important positions would have to be in on any secrets. For instance, the people monitoring the screens when the Apollo missions were being undertaken would have believed that they were watching genuine footage of men walking on the moon. Entirely unaware that they were watching staged footage.

I understand this has all been said before. But it is my sincere belief. So as NASA can be dismissed as fraudsters, their claims hold no weight at all.

As for the true nature of the earth - who knows? But i do know that the few genuine flat earth believers who post on these boards, in amongst all the angry noobs and angry not-so-noobs, stand out as the most intelligent and reasonable people of all.

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2011, 08:07:25 AM »
Quite some years before the world-wide-web became a big part of many people's lives, and information on the subject was scarce, i saw David Percy talking in London about the moon landings and how the evidence that NASA have presented for this is quite obviously fake. To say my world was rocked that day, would be a huge understatement. I really didn't want to believe it. But the weight of evidence against NASA's tall stories is huge. But if people want to carry on with the false belief that man has been to the moon, that's fine, i understand entirely why they believe this. People believe all manner of wierd and wonderful things.
<sigh> So little effort at original thought, just this tired old chestnut--again. Here's a reference to "Bad Astronomy" with links debunking Mizuki's sad, uninformed commentary: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/index.html.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2011, 08:20:41 AM »
Quite some years before the world-wide-web became a big part of many people's lives, and information on the subject was scarce, i saw David Percy talking in London about the moon landings and how the evidence that NASA have presented for this is quite obviously fake. To say my world was rocked that day, would be a huge understatement. I really didn't want to believe it. But the weight of evidence against NASA's tall stories is huge. But if people want to carry on with the false belief that man has been to the moon, that's fine, i understand entirely why they believe this. People believe all manner of wierd and wonderful things.
<sigh> So little effort at original thought, just this tired old chestnut--again. Here's a reference to "Bad Astronomy" with links debunking Mizuki's sad, uninformed commentary: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/index.html.

Hi Clocktower.

Here's a great site (Tom posted a link to it recently): http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html Hope you enjoy it.

Mizuki x
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 08:22:18 AM by Mizuki »
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2011, 08:27:35 AM »
Hi Clocktower.

Here's a great site (Tom posted a link to it recently): http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html Hope you enjoy it.

Mizuki x
Broken.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2011, 08:30:04 AM »
Works fine for me. Try it again.

Mizuki x
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2011, 08:48:04 AM »
Works fine for me. Try it again.

Mizuki x
Yep, working now... Do you really want to use that site as a basis for your argument? Here's an example of just how convincing the site is:

Quote from: http://www.aulis.com/publications.htm
Apollo Research
Ongoing analysis of the Apollo imagery (recorded 1969-72) suggests that the lunar surface photographs were faked.

"suggests"?? just "the lunar surface photographs"??

Let's review the authors... (Reference: http://www.aulis.com/nasaauthors.htm

Not one doctorate. Not one masters, Not one hard science degree. I don't even see a verifiable bachelor's degree.

Mary Bennett
Flaunts PSI abilities including remote-viewing--what a joke.

David Percy
A cameraman--what a lark.

Stan Gooch
psychological researcher who studied the evolution and history of the brain--irrelevant studies.

So... no qualifications to author this site. I wonder whether Bennett makes more from remote-viewing or lying about the Apollo program.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mizuki

  • 356
  • Earth is NOT a Globe
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2011, 08:52:51 AM »
Are you saying that a person's opinion only matters if they have been formally educated to degree level or equivalent? That is a very weak argument, Mr Clocktower.

The man who has put that site together, whether he is a Nobel Prize winning micro surgeon or an uneducated manual worker, has done a great job in showing a vast array of anomalies in the evidence that NASA present for their moon landing tales.

Mizuki x
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 09:00:13 AM by Mizuki »
"Earth is a maximal sphere in a cyclical space and its surface therefore a total plane, the equator plane of the Cosmos. The (total) plane, as well as the straight line and space as a whole, is flat, without curvature yet closed, running back on itself."

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2011, 09:02:49 AM »
Are you saying that a person's opinion only matters if they have had some kind of formal education? That is a very weak argument, Mr Clocktower.

The man who has put that site together, whether he is a Nobel Prize winning micro surgeon or an uneducated manual worker, has done a great job in showing a vast array of anomalies in the evidence that NASA present for their moon landing tales.

Mizuki x
Yes, I'm saying that those three are jerks and couldn't approach a problem scientifically if their lives depended on it. Not one of their challenges survives even a cursory review. Dr. Plait (and the MythBusters) has demonstrated repeatedly that these wild 'suggestions' are not worthy.

Why don't you find that one anomaly that you're most confident about and open a FED topic on it. I'd be glad to continue to debate your outlandish idea there. But since this is a thread on OR, why don't you try to stick to that topic here?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2011, 09:24:52 AM »

Applying occam's razor to this situation, in the truest sense that simpler explanations are generaly better than more complex ones, one can only conclude that the earth is indeed flat!  :o

Mizuki x
Just 20 minutes after ClockTower gave a clear and concise explanation on why Occam's Razor is not applicable here, you just repeat the failed argument, as if you had anything to repair it.

Simple explanations are absolutely worthless if they do not add to our understanding of the problem, and we know that some understanding has been added when we can predict more about the phenomena we are studying. You can believe FE explanations are simple (I do not) but time and time again there has been no predictive power in them. Occam's Razor is not even necessary or useful to see that worthless FE explanations are just garbage.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2011, 12:07:46 PM »

Applying occam's razor to this situation, in the truest sense that simpler explanations are generaly better than more complex ones, one can only conclude that the earth is indeed flat!  :o

Mizuki x

Applying Occam's razor to David Copperfield's act, the man can indeed fly!  :P
To the OP: there is no need to apply anything to bendy light, as the theory was long ago killed by a disproof. Unfortunately the FE'ers keep pretending it's still alive, much like a rotting corpse used as some sort of hideous puppet to give a semblance of life.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2011, 12:15:10 PM »
I guess my main question is, why does FE theory seem like an appealing theory if you have to resort to bendy light?  The main motivation is that the Earth visually appears to be flat, disregarding hills and valleys, but light can bend in the first place?  If you are willing to believe light can bend, would it not be a simpler theory to assume the Earth is mostly round, NASA did in fact send people and craft into space, Antarctica is a large island instead of a wall, stars are actually at least several light-years away, etc., and that bendy light is responsible for the Earth appearing flat in certain locations?

I think the problem is that most FE'ers don't realize how much of their theory is imaginary. Normally, when any one of these things is pinpointed, the FE'er will stall and eventually change the subject. But at the root of each of these, the defense is essentially, "well we have evidence that Earth IS flat, and IF that is so, this MUST be true also."

FET is like an enormous inverted house of cards balanced atop the cover of a dusty tome entitled "Earth Not a Globe". The FE'er steps back to take in the whole wobbling monstrosity, throws his arms wide and cries, "Look! Look at all the evidence we have!" not realizing that each one is predicated on all the others. Not to mention, much of it contradicts the original basis (Earth Not a Globe).
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2011, 02:28:25 PM »
ClockTower:
I agree with you that it appears that FET is nowhere near as predictive as RET.  But I'm not sure why that means OR doesn't even apply.  To me that makes this a perfect situation to apply OR.  I think a well-intentioned FE believer could add a bunch of additional clauses to FET to give it some predictive power, but that's what makes RET the winner in my mind after you apply OR.

I understand OR is just a general thumb rule in the first place - as far as I can tell there's nothing written in the gears of the universe that means the simpler, more elegant theory is automatically the winner, but historically it seems to usually work that way.  But as far as I'm aware, there are no specific criteria that have to be met in order to apply OR.

Mizuki:
Like you, I also grew up spoon-fed the idea that the Earth is round.  I'm sure you will agree that just because one is spoon-fed an idea, it is not necessarily true, but neither is it necessarily false.  I happen to believe wholeheartedly the RET that I was spoon-fed.  Certainly I believe the easiest way to tell is to look at it from space, and I wholeheartedly believe that the claims that some or all of the US space program was a hoax have been entirely debunked.  Obviously we disagree on that.  I would agree with EmperorZhark that applying OR to the choice between a FET that believes the space program was a hoax and a RET that believes it happened would lead one to choose RET.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "know absolutely, 100% for certain, the true nature of the earth", Mizuki, but I think plenty of people have access to evidence suggesting the earth is round.  Even though you might discount reports from astronauts as being falsified, I can personally verify as a sailor that distant ships appear hull-down over the horizon, and that low-lying coral atolls with coconut trees can only be seen at most about ten miles away even on calm seas (with small wave heights) and even when the air is clear enough to see much more distant high volcanic islands.  That, and the success of ocean navigation that assumes the earth is an oblate spheroid, is enough for me, even if I were to distrust everyone who spoon-fed me the idea that the Earth is round.

The Knowledge:
The strongest evidence for FET seems to be the Rowbotham experiments measuring elevations of poles some distance apart along a flat canal.  I personally believe refraction of light (which is easy to demonstrate) is the simplest and most plausible explanation for his results.  I was co-opting the phrase "bendy light" to refer to refraction as well as the FET idea of bendy light.  My assumption was that FE theorists don't believe refraction explains Rowbotham's results, but instead they believe the earth is flat.  I was trying to suggest that discounting one version of bendy light (refraction) to explain a set of results, only to construct a more elaborate theory that ultimately also involves the idea of bendy light, just seems inconsistent at best.


Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2011, 03:50:27 PM »
Quite some years before the world-wide-web became a big part of many people's lives, and information on the subject was scarce, i saw David Percy talking in London about the moon landings and how the evidence that NASA have presented for this is quite obviously fake. To say my world was rocked that day, would be a huge understatement. I really didn't want to believe it. But the weight of evidence against NASA's tall stories is huge. But if people want to carry on with the false belief that man has been to the moon, that's fine, i understand entirely why they believe this. People believe all manner of wierd and wonderful things.
<sigh> So little effort at original thought, just this tired old chestnut--again. Here's a reference to "Bad Astronomy" with links debunking Mizuki's sad, uninformed commentary: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/index.html.

Hi Clocktower.

Here's a great site (Tom posted a link to it recently): http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html Hope you enjoy it.

Mizuki x

Here's another link:

http://www.clavius.org/

Or just google "debunking moon landing conspiracy" and you'll have a lot of explainations about this so-called "moon conspiracy".

It also shows something quite clear: the only way the conspirationists reason is by saying: "Ha ha, there's something wrong with this photo, so man never landed on the Moon", which is hardly a proof. And when you see all the explainations, you find that almost ALL of the so-called wrong things on the photo have a logical explaination.

“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2011, 04:38:12 PM »
I do wonder if any of the FET proponents have ever taken calculus? If they ever did then they would understand why curves appear flat at small resolution.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2011, 04:58:46 PM »
ClockTower:
I agree with you that it appears that FET is nowhere near as predictive as RET.  But I'm not sure why that means OR doesn't even apply.  To me that makes this a perfect situation to apply OR.  I think a well-intentioned FE believer could add a bunch of additional clauses to FET to give it some predictive power, but that's what makes RET the winner in my mind after you apply OR.

I understand OR is just a general thumb rule in the first place - as far as I can tell there's nothing written in the gears of the universe that means the simpler, more elegant theory is automatically the winner, but historically it seems to usually work that way.  But as far as I'm aware, there are no specific criteria that have to be met in order to apply OR.
It's really quite easy to understand... FET requires a great deal of inferences about unknown entities:
  • Why do things fall? The UA
  • Why does Jupiter revolve around the Sun? Magical tubes
  • How does the Sun appear the same size throughout the day? Magical glare that no polarized sunglasses can eliminate.
  • What causes a lunar eclipse? A shadow object
  • What cause air travel in the Southern Hemidisk to be on time? Magic jet streams (one in each direction) on every route.
  • What causes the Sun's illumination to change shape through the seasons? Magic
  • What causes the Sun's position in the sky to vary with the seasons? Magic
  • What causes the tides? Magical variations in air pressure
  • What causes the Foucault Pendulum to process in the predicted direction and angle? Magic attraction to something probably overhead
  • What causes the outer planets to move retrograde? Magic tubes
  • What causes the phases of Venus and Mercury? Magic illumination
  • What causes the phases of the Moon? monthly growth and die-off of the Moon's biomass
and so on...

Which theory:
  • predicts when and where the Sun will rise in the next 24 hours everywhere on Earth?
  • predicts the orbit of the Moon?
  • predicts solar eclipses?
  • predicts lunar eclipses?
  • predicts the direction of trade winds and other circulation patterns?
  • predicts Earth's shadow appearing on the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset--and that it's curved?
  • predicts how photos of the Earth from near-space and space will appear--whether the area is in day or night?
  • predicts the distance around Antarctica?

So FET requires inferences about unknown objects and fails to predict anything.

So OR selects the theory that trades inferences for predictions.

So OR selects RET!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2011, 10:32:29 PM »
ClockTower:
I agree with you that it appears that FET is nowhere near as predictive as RET.  But I'm not sure why that means OR doesn't even apply.  To me that makes this a perfect situation to apply OR.  I think a well-intentioned FE believer could add a bunch of additional clauses to FET to give it some predictive power, but that's what makes RET the winner in my mind after you apply OR.

I understand OR is just a general thumb rule in the first place - as far as I can tell there's nothing written in the gears of the universe that means the simpler, more elegant theory is automatically the winner, but historically it seems to usually work that way.  But as far as I'm aware, there are no specific criteria that have to be met in order to apply OR.
It's really quite easy to understand... FET requires a great deal of inferences about unknown entities:
  • Why do things fall? The UA
  • Why does Jupiter revolve around the Sun? Magical tubes
  • How does the Sun appear the same size throughout the day? Magical glare that no polarized sunglasses can eliminate.
  • What causes a lunar eclipse? A shadow object
  • What cause air travel in the Southern Hemidisk to be on time? Magic jet streams (one in each direction) on every route.
  • What causes the Sun's illumination to change shape through the seasons? Magic
  • What causes the Sun's position in the sky to vary with the seasons? Magic
  • What causes the tides? Magical variations in air pressure
  • What causes the Foucault Pendulum to process in the predicted direction and angle? Magic attraction to something probably overhead
  • What causes the outer planets to move retrograde? Magic tubes
  • What causes the phases of Venus and Mercury? Magic illumination
  • What causes the phases of the Moon? monthly growth and die-off of the Moon's biomass
and so on...

Which theory:
  • predicts when and where the Sun will rise in the next 24 hours everywhere on Earth?
  • predicts the orbit of the Moon?
  • predicts solar eclipses?
  • predicts lunar eclipses?
  • predicts the direction of trade winds and other circulation patterns?
  • predicts Earth's shadow appearing on the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset--and that it's curved?
  • predicts how photos of the Earth from near-space and space will appear--whether the area is in day or night?
  • predicts the distance around Antarctica?

So FET requires inferences about unknown objects and fails to predict anything.

So OR selects the theory that trades inferences for predictions.

So OR selects RET!

But like you said earlier, it really doesn't even come down to Occam's Razor unless the two theories are equal. 

retrograde motion is the best though,  I made a thread on that a while back, and i still have no clue how FE explains it.  I mean the planets have to be within the circumference of the earth (so you should be able to see them all the time) and orbiting the sun extremely slowly, yet faster at other times...  Not to mention that retrograde motion can produce loops in the sky if you trace through the positions, which would make sense if the planet was orbiting above us, but they can also produce an S shape, which is impossible unless its orbiting the sun in the same plane as the earth while the earth orbits the sun. 

I might go necro that thread, its so funny.

Anyways i really like the OP's original point. 

The mind of an FE'er

1.) look outside --- the earth is flat!!!
2.) the sun is directly overhead and moves out of sight at night.
3.) Light bends so the sun never shrinks when it moves away.
4.) cool, done.

RE'er

1.)  How do you know the earth is flat if light bends?

FE'er

1.)  because NASA never landed on the moon!!!!
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 10:44:45 PM by OrbisNonSufficit »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2011, 03:36:59 PM »

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2011, 03:40:04 PM »
retrograde motion


What a laugher! The planet goes retrograde six time every day in your diagram. Oh, and a self-published diagram can never be proof of anything, especially when it's time scale is off by at 700 times.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2011, 03:46:51 PM »
What a laugher! The planet goes retrograde six time every day in your diagram.

How can you tell how fast the bodies are moving in a static diagram?  ???

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2011, 03:52:39 PM »
What a laugher! The planet goes retrograde six time every day in your diagram.

How can you tell how fast the bodies are moving in a static diagram?  ???
Easily... In all versions of FET, the Sun revolves around the northern hub once a day. Your diagram shows the planet going three times in less than half a day.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2011, 04:06:54 PM »
Easily... In all versions of FET, the Sun revolves around the northern hub once a day. Your diagram shows the planet going three times in less than half a day.

The diagram doesn't show how fast the planet is moving.

If a diagram shows a turtle and a rabbit in a race heading towards the finish line, does it follow that that the turtle is as fast as the rabbit?


?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2011, 04:11:25 PM »
Easily... In all versions of FET, the Sun revolves around the northern hub once a day. Your diagram shows the planet going three times in less than half a day.

The diagram doesn't show how fast the planet is moving.

If a diagram shows a turtle and a rabbit in a race heading towards the finish line, does it follow that that the turtle is as fast as the rabbit?

Tom we have been over this.  Retrograde motion produces S shapes as well.  How does that happen?  Not to mention that retrograde motion is not a 50 percent of the time event, so does the planet speed up then slow down?  And if the sun is moving at a certain rate, then the bodies orbiting that will be moving at the same rate.  Think about the moon, it moves around the sun at the same speed the earth does, so the planets orbiting the sun would move the northern hub at the same rate the sun does. 

Your diagram just makes no sense.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 04:18:42 PM by OrbisNonSufficit »

Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2011, 04:17:49 PM »
Easily... In all versions of FET, the Sun revolves around the northern hub once a day. Your diagram shows the planet going three times in less than half a day.

The diagram doesn't show how fast the planet is moving.

If a diagram shows a turtle and a rabbit in a race heading towards the finish line, does it follow that that the turtle is as fast as the rabbit?
If you show a diagram of two objects that orbit each other such as the Sun and the northern disk, and we know that the Sun orbits the northern disk, then we know at what speed the Sun is moving. If you show a planet orbiting the Sun, such as the planet in your diagram, we know how the planet orbits the Sun in the time period covered by the diagram as many times as you show it--which is three.

So what planet orbits the Sun more than three times a day? Mars takes more than 650 days.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2011, 05:45:37 PM »
Tom we have been over this.  Retrograde motion produces S shapes as well. How does that happen?

An S shape can be made by adjusting the variables of the scene - eccentricity, motion rate, apogee angle, size of the circle, etc.

Check out this link: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

This is a geocentric model with the earth at the center, but the idea of circles moving around circles is the same. Adjust the variables and you can easily get S shapes.

Quote
Not to mention that retrograde motion is not a 50 percent of the time event, so does the planet speed up then slow down?

Why would the planet need to speed up or slow down to make shapes in the sky?

Quote
And if the sun is moving at a certain rate, then the bodies orbiting that will be moving at the same rate.  Think about the moon, it moves around the sun at the same speed the earth does, so the planets orbiting the sun would move the northern hub at the same rate the sun does. 

This is correct. The planets do pass by overhead every night. They just don't make loops in the sky each night. In the diagram, while the sun is moving at one rotation per 24 hours, and the planets are circling the earth at one rotation per 24 hours, the planets are moving around the sun at a much slower rate.

The retrograde motion happens by tracing the path of the planet in the sky over a long period of time.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2011, 05:55:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2011, 05:53:28 PM »
Tom we have been over this.  Retrograde motion produces S shapes as well. How does that happen?

Correct, we have been over this. As I've said, an S shape can be made by adjusting the variables of the scene.

Check out this link: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

This is a geocentric model with the earth at the center, but the idea of circles moving around circles is the same. Adjust the variables and you can easily get S shapes.

That geocentric model assumes that the earth is round.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17814
Re: Applying Occam's Razor to bendy light?
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2011, 05:56:30 PM »
Tom we have been over this.  Retrograde motion produces S shapes as well. How does that happen?

Correct, we have been over this. As I've said, an S shape can be made by adjusting the variables of the scene.

Check out this link: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

This is a geocentric model with the earth at the center, but the idea of circles moving around circles is the same. Adjust the variables and you can easily get S shapes.

That geocentric model assumes that the earth is round.

Then it's a good thing that I presented it as a circle simulator and not in support of the geocentric model, isn't it?