Revised: concave and convex spotlight

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 22, 2012, 11:11:39 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 22, 2012, 07:23:59 AM

Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?

In the middle of the lit area, wherever that would be.

I thought that even the FE theorists, (certainly Rowbotham) accepted that the Sun is always in the zenith of some place on Earth. In fact, all ideas of bendy light until now accept that when sunlight comes from the zenith it comes vertically down, without bending.

In this diagram it is perfectly clear that the Sun will appear to be very close or (if you believe in bendy light) under the horizon for everyone on Earth. But I can tell you, since I live close to the Equator, that the Sun passes close to the zenith at noon every day. Every day that I look it is up there, and any day that the Sun were close to the horizon at noon the long shadows would be quite evident.

As always, every new "theory" from these people creates more problems than it solves, and in cases like this one it does not even solve anything.

you are right, i cant comprehend how much bending would be needed for us to see the sun passing overhead if the sun was always beyond the outer rim. i would explain what is visible in the pictures provided but PP's picture surely cannot be reality. pizzaplanet, can you provide something to show how the light bends so much to show how we observe the sun passing overhead and how we see it rise and set?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on January 22, 2012, 11:11:39 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 22, 2012, 07:23:59 AM

Where exactly would the sun be located within the lit area that you have described?

In the middle of the lit area, wherever that would be.

Which means that it's not above the equator where it is observed every equinox, correct?

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 23, 2012, 01:00:34 AM

Gravity is readily visible. 

No.  The effects of gravity are readily visible.  Gravity itself is quite elusive.

I use gravity and gravitation interchangably like normal people outside this forum do.  I made it quite clear that i understood that we have no real idea as to why it acts the way it does, but it is quite clear that it is real.

Now i understand that the Fe'ers will say, gravity is not a force, that is correct, well at least its not a force in the sense it effects everything, that being said gravitation is a readily apparent phenomenon.

Regardless comparing gravity to bendy light is apples and oranges. 

Gravity is readily visible.  We may not have an explanation for why mass distorts the universe around it, but we know that it does.

Almost correct. The idea that it's mass that causes gravitation* is purely theoretical.

Gravity is not theoretical, its just not fully understood.  But we use it to fly our space ships,  we use it to make accurate predictions for many things.  Gravity as a theory works well, in fact its never been proven false.  We just keep changing our theory of how it does what it does.

Excellent. Then we are in agreement that it is not less "magic" than EAT.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 23, 2012, 01:00:34 AM

Gravity is readily visible.  We may not have an explanation for why mass distorts the universe around it, but we know that it does.

Almost correct. The idea that it's mass that causes gravitation* is purely theoretical.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 23, 2012, 01:00:34 AM

Gravity is not theoretical, its just not fully understood.  But we use it to fly our space ships,  we use it to make accurate predictions for many things.  Gravity as a theory works well, in fact its never been proven false.  We just keep changing our theory of how it does what it does.

Excellent. Then we are in agreement that it is not less "magic" than EAT.

1.) It is not purely theoretical, it is commonly observed that large mass objects posses a predictable amount of gravitation.  Orbits of planets, shapes of planets, fusion, black holes, hell even standing on earth, its all observations of gravitation.  As the objects get more massive/concentrated their gravitation also increases.  There is a clear way to calculate how much gravitation an object will have, and what acceleration it will exert on nearby bodies. 

2.) Incorrect.  bendy light is not a common readily apparent phenomenon.  Therefore it is not just as "magic" as gravitation.  the first time i ever heard of bendy light (i have taken a number of astronomy, photography, and history courses) was on these forums, and from what i have read it is incomplete and not tested.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 23, 2012, 01:00:34 AM

We just keep changing our theory of how it does what it does.

Excellent. Then we are in agreement that it is not less "magic" than EAT.

Nope. You still haven't decided what EAT does.

Nope. You still haven't decided what EAT does.

Incorrect.

Quote from: zarg on January 23, 2012, 04:33:14 PM

Nope. You still haven't decided what EAT does.

Incorrect.

Unless you are ready to say "EAT magically makes our flat Earth look round in every way possible, intelligently finding how the idiot humans will measure it and twisting the measurements to keep them ignorant", you really have to say that nobody knows what EAT does.

EAT does not twist light in a predictable way, it does not keep the air in a bubble over us through known physics, it does not create light so the Sun is about as luminous when it hovers above us as when it hovers far away, simulating a dusk, I can think of hundreds of things that the EAT does not do, but I cannot find a single one that it does in a predictable way.

The Earth doesn't look round in most scenarios.

The Earth doesn't look round in most scenarios.

The Earth doesn't look flat in most scenarios.

pizzaplanet, can you provide something to show how the light bends so much to show how we observe the sun passing overhead and how we see it rise and set?

Quote from: zarg on January 23, 2012, 04:33:14 PM

Nope. You still haven't decided what EAT does.

Incorrect.

But only on Tuesdays.

i didn't know so many people would deny evidence slammed right in there face. but you know what they say ignorance is bliss

Quote from: squevil on January 22, 2012, 01:05:11 AM

firstly reguardless of what others have said this is not an attack on anything. i wanted to discuss what is observable and how this is applied to FET. perhaps PP you will be willing to provide some of your own thoughts on the subject? do you really think it is caused due to bendy light or refraction? can you perform an experiment for this? i was also thinking of thorks whirlpool theory too.

Personally, I support the belief that the area illuminated by the sun is many times the size of the Earth, kind of like this:

This is absolutely not to scale. Just an illustration of the concept. With the right scaling, the lit area is quite similar to just half the Earth, and the dark area on the Earth is concave. That seems to be consistent with most pictures I've seen. It makes for some inconsistency with RET, but RET should not be assumed as default.

Quote from: squevil on January 22, 2012, 01:05:11 AM

"You seem to already know the answer. Why bother the others?"

isnt this an area for debate? also what does your statement imply? what is the answer that i already know? i think i may have the answer as this experiment can be duplicated using a sphere very easily. but i thought my findings were thought provoking atleast.

As you said, it is likely a proof of bendy light. Sorry if I seemed aggressive, it just looked like you're trying to bait people into something here.

Quote from: squevil on January 22, 2012, 01:05:11 AM

i believe the lack of witty remarks from the fes may imply that there isnt an answer to concave and convex spotlights, thats fine. worth some serious disscusion though dont you think?

It could be a nice topic, but the discussion should probably be more specific. I would imagine you're getting no answers because it's hard to tell what exactly you're asking. You seem to be saying that the apparent shape of the Sun would have to do with how it illuminates the Earth, but I see no reason why you'd say that.

pizzaplanet i have addressed this model here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52981.0