« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

RErs vs Thork game

  • 50 Replies
  • 11986 Views
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
RErs vs Thork game
« on: August 01, 2013, 12:20:23 PM »
A slightly more casual thread, but I keep hearing RErs say that FErs haven't discussed every topic before and that we dodge them. If you have any query you think has been ignored, ask and I will link an answer.

So ... lets play.

RErs can ask question about FET. Whatever you like. And I will respond with a link. Because I'm confident I have had every discussion before.

Rules.
1) It must be a legitimate FET question about a principle or theory. Not something specific like how far from Rio to Melbourne on an FE map?
2) All Links by me must come from my old Thork account (which I can't add to)
3) The game ends when I either fail to provide a link (RErs win) or the RErs run out of stuff to ask (Thork wins).

Please number your questions so as when I come back to the thread, I can easily put a link next to each number.
Logged
?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2013, 12:29:22 PM »
Alright, I'll play.  What optical effects are present in FE models that aren't accounted for in RE models, and precisely how and how much do they affect light?

I presume if the answer in the link provided is easily disproved by a specific example, I can use said example, yes?
Logged
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2013, 12:38:37 PM »
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Alright, I'll play.  What optical effects are present in FE models that aren't accounted for in RE models, and precisely how and how much do they affect light?

I presume if the answer in the link provided is easily disproved by a specific example, I can use said example, yes?
I'm not going to have thirty different debates in one thread. I'll provide a link and you can see how the thread panned out.

Quote from: Thork on April 04, 2013, 02:57:49 PM
I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO BENDY LIGHT THEORY. >o<
but the link below might help explain optical effects.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56937.msg1427500.html#msg1427500
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM »
I'll play, under the condition that the link(s) that you provide actually contain a legitimate answer to the question posed.

2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?
Logged
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.
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2013, 12:54:19 PM »
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49528.msg1215920.html#msg1215920

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.msg1354758.html#msg1354758
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2013, 01:04:49 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49528.msg1215920.html#msg1215920

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.msg1354758.html#msg1354758
I'm sorry, but I don't see where refraction is refuted in either of those links.
Logged
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.
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2013, 01:06:09 PM »
In both links in the sources, they clearly state that refraction is accounted for during the Bedford Level experiments. The info is there. I have covered it.
Logged
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2013, 01:09:41 PM »
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49528.msg1215920.html#msg1215920

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.msg1354758.html#msg1354758
I'm sorry, but I don't see where refraction is refuted in either of those links.

In deference to ThÆvan's effort, maybe you can elaborate a little?  There is definitely discussion's in the experiments he refers to that even accounting for refraction, the Earth still appears flat.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by ThÆvan.
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2013, 01:17:02 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 12:38:37 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 12:29:22 PM
Alright, I'll play.  What optical effects are present in FE models that aren't accounted for in RE models, and precisely how and how much do they affect light?

I presume if the answer in the link provided is easily disproved by a specific example, I can use said example, yes?
I'm not going to have thirty different debates in one thread. I'll provide a link and you can see how the thread panned out.

Quote from: Thork on April 04, 2013, 02:57:49 PM
I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO BENDY LIGHT THEORY. >o<
but the link below might help explain optical effects.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56937.msg1427500.html#msg1427500
Okay, since you don't claim any other optical effects than what are present in RE models, we'll skip that question.

What causes apparent celestial gravitation, and why isn't the Earth affected by the same force?
Logged
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2013, 01:23:53 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set on August 01, 2013, 01:09:41 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 01:04:49 PM
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49528.msg1215920.html#msg1215920

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.msg1354758.html#msg1354758
I'm sorry, but I don't see where refraction is refuted in either of those links.

In deference to ThÆvan's effort, maybe you can elaborate a little?  There is definitely discussion's in the experiments he refers to that even accounting for refraction, the Earth still appears flat.

EDIT: Ninja'ed by ThÆvan.

The BLE observations were generally conducted very close to the water line (18 inches or so) where the air can be significantly more dense than just a few feet higher.  This can cause significantly more refraction than might normally be accounted for.
Logged
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.
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2013, 01:26:11 PM »
Logged
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2013, 01:27:28 PM »
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 01:23:53 PM
This can cause significantly more refraction than might normally be accounted for.
No, refraction was accounted for. Lets move on. I've done Bedford Level a hundered times.
Logged
?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM »
It's fine that you don't subscribe to celestial gravitation, but what's your explanation for objects hurtling toward one another in space on no apparent gear and how celestial objects are held in roughly spherical shapes?  I.E. Andromeda to the Milky Way and every other celestial object observed yet.

That's a nice alternative to the force on Earth, but see above for the actual question asked.

I cut this down severely because I was getting a 406.
Logged
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2013, 01:54:38 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 12:54:19 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49528.msg1215920.html#msg1215920

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.msg1354758.html#msg1354758

Okay, I see them accounting for refraction, but didn't the experiment show the Earth was curved....? Ah, beside the point and for another thread.
Logged
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2013, 01:55:09 PM »
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
It's fine that you don't subscribe to celestial gravitation, but what's your explanation for objects hurtling toward one another in space on no apparent gear
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,43555.msg1079913.html#msg1079913

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
and how celestial objects are held in roughly spherical shapes?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57261.msg1437783.html#msg1437783

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
That's a nice alternative to the force on Earth, but see above for the actual question asked.
Its the start of the debate. the second post I make is more specific to your question.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
I cut this down severely because I was getting a 406.
Good. I'm not interested in your life story.
Logged
*

FlatOrange

  • 2458
  • +0/-0
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2013, 01:57:17 PM »
Is aetheric wind the reason sunlight can reach much farther (from southern tip of South America to Australia) than would be possible if only due to proximity?

What is aetheric wind? How does it carry sunlight?  Why do we not see any effects of aetheric wind?
Logged
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2013, 01:57:47 PM »
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich link=topic=59422.msg1522428#msg1522428
but didn't the experiment show the Earth was curved....?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56900.msg1425556.html#msg1425556

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49559.msg1217109.html#msg1217109
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 02:00:28 PM by Ævan »
Logged
*

Thork

  • 1686
  • +1/-0
  • Please do not touch or disturb me.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2013, 02:07:52 PM »
Quote from: FlatOrange on August 01, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
Is aetheric wind the reason sunlight can reach much farther (from southern tip of South America to Australia) than would be possible if only due to proximity?

What is aetheric wind? How does it carry sunlight?  Why do we not see any effects of aetheric wind?
I don't subscribe to Aetheric wind theory because FET has not finished its work on it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,43855.msg1086692.html#msg1086692

I answer the spotlight theory question like so
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,42888.msg1063151.html#msg1063151
Logged
?

Pyrolizard

  • 699
  • +0/-0
  • The Militant Skeptic
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2013, 02:17:28 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
It's fine that you don't subscribe to celestial gravitation, but what's your explanation for objects hurtling toward one another in space on no apparent gear
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,43555.msg1079913.html#msg1079913
The question becomes then, why is the effect of UA not consistent?  To clarify, the matter present in the Andromeda galaxy has always been present.  The same can be said of the matter in the Milky Way.  If we presume that UA acts on each atom, then we have the issue that Andromeda should be accelerating at the same speed as the Milky Way.

Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
and how celestial objects are held in roughly spherical shapes?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57261.msg1437783.html#msg1437783
Your argument makes no point as to why every other observed celestial object is roughly spherical.  It only states that Earth is special in that it's the only place in the universe that supports life, which is only true as far as we know.  We haven't observed even a portion of the objects of planetary mass around every star in the universe in depth, so we can't say that Earth is the only place with life definitively without making an assumption.

Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
That's a nice alternative to the force on Earth, but see above for the actual question asked.
Its the start of the debate. the second post I make is more specific to your question.
Fair enough, can we have some evidence of dark energy doing as you claim without starting from said presumption?

Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 01, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
I cut this down severely because I was getting a 406.
Good. I'm not interested in your life story.
Not my life story, try the majority of your post.  I'm guessing because of the links, at any rate, irrelevant.
Logged
Quote from: Shmeggley
Wherever someone is wrong on the internet, Pyrolizard will be there!

Quote from: Excelsior John
I dont care about the majority I care about Obama.
Let it always be known that Excelsior John is against democracy.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2013, 02:28:58 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 01:27:28 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 01:23:53 PM
This can cause significantly more refraction than might normally be accounted for.
No, refraction was accounted for. Lets move on. I've done Bedford Level a hundered times.
They say that refraction was accounted for, but they don't explain how refraction was accounted for or even how much refraction was accounted for.  Basically, they're saying that we should just take their word for it.  Last I knew, zeteticism didn't work that way.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 02:30:56 PM by markjo »
Logged
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
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2013, 02:38:01 PM »
Quote from: FlatOrange on August 01, 2013, 01:57:17 PM
Is aetheric wind the reason sunlight can reach much farther (from southern tip of South America to Australia) than would be possible if only due to proximity?

What is aetheric wind? How does it carry sunlight?  Why do we not see any effects of aetheric wind?

If Thork doesn't mind my invading of his thread, I'll answer those as the chief theorist of AWT.

Aetheric wind's effect on light works the opposite way. It doesn't allow light to go farther, it interferes with and distorts light. It causes night, not day.

Aetheric wind is a theorized substance which, in some theories, acts as the Universal Accelerator. Effects of the Aetheric Wind include gravitational variation, coriolis effect, and the Midnight Sun.
Logged
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2013, 02:56:59 PM »
Quote from: Ævan on August 01, 2013, 01:57:47 PM
Quote from: Alex Tomasovich link=topic=59422.msg1522428#msg1522428
but didn't the experiment show the Earth was curved....?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56900.msg1425556.html#msg1425556

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49559.msg1217109.html#msg1217109

You say you can't trust Wallace because you can't read his results, but in a prior thread you yourself have given Wallace's results--including the diagrams drawn by both referees (one on each side of the debate), both diagrams showing the convexity of the water.

How does FET account for that?
Logged
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2013, 03:00:16 PM »
How does FET (or you) account for my own measurement of Mt. Adams from my house appearing about half as tall as it should be? Keep in mind refraction would bend light downward, making it appear taller than it should.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2013, 04:35:37 PM »
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
I'll play, under the condition that the link(s) that you provide actually contain a legitimate answer to the question posed.

2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2013, 09:32:24 AM
the fact that certain refractive events will occur under certain conditions means that atmospheric refraction can not be automatically invoked ... without knowing what conditions were present at the time of the observation.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2013, 04:59:50 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 01, 2013, 04:35:37 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
I'll play, under the condition that the link(s) that you provide actually contain a legitimate answer to the question posed.

2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2013, 09:32:24 AM
the fact that certain refractive events will occur under certain conditions means that atmospheric refraction can not be automatically invoked ... without knowing what conditions were present at the time of the observation.
For the record (there's a refraction thread for further discussion) unless the Bedford Levels were all done on extremely cold days such that the water was warmer than the air, then the air would be colder closer to the water, making refraction make every object appear higher. All three sketches of what was seen from the Bedford Level Experiment show the bridge lower than the disks, so whatever refraction did occur wasn't enough to cancel out the curve of the Earth:


Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2013, 06:19:16 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 01, 2013, 04:35:37 PM
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
I'll play, under the condition that the link(s) that you provide actually contain a legitimate answer to the question posed.

2)  Why don't FE'ers accept atmospheric refraction as a legitimate possible explanation for the apparent flatness found in water convexity experiments such as the Bedford Levels experiment?

Quote from: markjo on July 30, 2013, 09:32:24 AM
the fact that certain refractive events will occur under certain conditions means that atmospheric refraction can not be automatically invoked or dismissed without knowing what conditions were present at the time of the observation.

If you're going to quote me, then please don't change the context.  You know how I get about intellectual dishonesty.  >:(
« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 06:21:38 PM by markjo »
Logged
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
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2013, 07:29:05 PM »
I could probably play this game just as successfully as Ivan but I just don't have the patience.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

pax

  • 61
  • +0/-0
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2013, 08:18:00 PM »
Given the computational complexity of photo-realistic CG, how does the NASA conspiracy produce hundreds of thousands of perfectly faked photographs, videos, and (most importantly) live feeds. Keep in mind, the latest CG movies take on the order of 60 million render hours, and these movies need to make tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars to be profitable. NASA gains no income from this better-than-ILM CG.

Related: Massive conspiracies crumble, how big of a conspiracy can continue without anyone ever coming forward?

Also: Why devote extremely scarce (NASA has been neutered by the government lately) resources to create incredibly expensive to manufacture mundane footage, which is always flawless.
Logged
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • 37800
  • +1/-0
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2013, 10:26:05 PM »
Thork, why is the world so flat?  I mean, it could be round if it was not so flat.  The amount of flatness is ridiculous. 

Also, why can some people see the flatness, but others can not?  Are they in denial?  Do they really see the flatness but neglect to admit it? 

These are some unanswered questions that I have had.  Please post links to the answers or you can answer yourself.  I just need to know.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45084
  • +87/-114
Re: RErs vs Thork game
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2013, 05:26:23 AM »
Thork, I live in a river valley with hills all around me.  What does looking out my window really tell me about the shape of the earth?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 05:29:11 AM by markjo »
Logged
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.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »