If the light bends how can you trust what you see?

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 06, 2014, 05:13:16 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 06, 2014, 05:07:47 PM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 06, 2014, 04:50:44 PM

Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon

Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.

and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.

You can perform the experiment yourself by going outside with binoculars. Stop being lazy and pedantic.

Unfortunately, I live in a nice, rural area, in which my sight line is limited by trees, and not the actual horizon

It doesn't sound like you've done the experiment either, you've only talked about (but not provided) third hand accounts of this "totally happening". There's a picture right here in this thread which we were talking about specifically, until it became inconvenient, which seems to show a city half occluded by the horizon. What causes that?

It doesn't sound like you've not done the experiment either, you've only talked about (but not provided) third hand accounts of this "totally happening". There's a picture right here in this thread which we were talking about specifically, until it became inconvenient, which seems to show a city half occluded by the horizon. What causes that?

Please start reading my posts so that we can lower the number of "huh I can't read" posts taking up the upper fora.

Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.

I've made some seriously trivial videos in the past but I really don't want to have to push the bar even lower just to illustrate this

I have read your posts, all of them, every word. Quite carefully, too, because I'm here specifically to see things from your and your cohorts' side(s) and how that point of view reacts to scrutiny. Please indulge me, take me through -slowly- why the bottom of Chicago isn't visible in that photo. Perhaps agreeing on where the vanishing point or horizon line in that picture is would be a good place to start.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 06, 2014, 04:00:59 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 06, 2014, 03:53:38 PM

Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.

Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.

Maybe one day someone will actually back this claim up. As of now, not one single Fe'er has, yet they like to make this claim all the time.

We had a couple of photographers do this here. Globularists both. Sil was one. I don't remember the second off hand. When/if I get a chance this wknd, perhaps I'll dig up a link for you. Very disingenuous to pretend you haven't seen them.

Quote from: sokarul on May 06, 2014, 04:07:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 06, 2014, 04:00:59 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 06, 2014, 03:53:38 PM

Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.

Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.

Maybe one day someone will actually back this claim up. As of now, not one single Fe'er has, yet they like to make this claim all the time.

We had a couple of photographers do this here. Globularists both. Sil was one. I don't remember the second off hand. When/if I get a chance this wknd, perhaps I'll dig up a link for you. Very disingenuous to pretend you haven't seen them.

I have seen photos of objects behind the horizon. There are no photos that restore more of the objects with more zoom.

are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions

are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions

Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 02:15:55 AM

are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions

Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.

Except water has a refractive index of 1.33 and air has a refractive index of 1.00015 to 1.00035 (negligible effect.)

For clarity purposes, I set up a simulation of a flat surface up against a curved one. The setup looked like this, as viewed from the top down:



On the left is a round surface and on the right, a flat one. Both sides have three "buildings". The distances to the buildings are identical, and the cameras are also identical. Importantly, I added a distinctive white band to the bottom of the buildings, and a black one to the top so you can see where they are. Happy to upload the scene if anybody would like to play with it.

The output looks like this:


Notice how the furthest back building is noticeably shorter on the left than the one on the right. The white band is also completely missing; the bottom of the building is being hidden by the curvature. On the right however, you can see the whole thing.




Zooming both cameras (keeping them still identical) simply amplifies the effect. From this, a prediction can be made that zooming in reality maintains the missing bottom of the buildings too.

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 02:15:55 AM

are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions

Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.

if earth is going sufficiently fast, then the light's bend is not negligable. if earth is traveling at C, then light will do a 45 degree angle towards the ground instead of going horizontal

I think the curve he meant was the curve due to gravity from general relativity.

Quote from: bravimone on May 10, 2014, 03:01:35 AM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 02:15:55 AM

are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions

Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.

if earth is going sufficiently fast, then the light's bend is not negligable. if earth is traveling at C, then light will do a 45 degree angle towards the ground instead of going horizontal

Congratulations, you have won the debate.
Based on UA we should be pretty close to this right now.

I think the curve he meant was the curve due to gravity from general relativity.

i EXPLICITLY explained that the curvature is due to upwards acceleration of the FE. 

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 02:43:25 PM

Quote from: bravimone on May 10, 2014, 03:01:35 AM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 02:15:55 AM

are you aware of the famous experiment which validated relativity? bending light around a curve doesnt really distort the image all that much unless the object distorting the light is directly in the light path so that it is distorted in all directions

Well, it depends on how much the light bends. The effect predicted by relativity is negligible in the every day life, and you really can't see the distortion. Refraction "bends" light much more, and putting a stick in a bowl of water shows that it visibly distorts the image of it.

if earth is going sufficiently fast, then the light's bend is not negligable. if earth is traveling at C, then light will do a 45 degree angle towards the ground instead of going horizontal

Congratulations, you have won the debate.
Based on UA we should be pretty close to this right now.

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aetheric winds.

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

if aether winds really do explain this, then im all ears. ill ignore the fact that aether isnt experimentally verified until after i determine if your aether wind idea works :p
could you explain?

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.

Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.

LOL your model is flawed. simply because it hasn't calculated colour similarity pixel count. reflection of light visualised is   colour variant dependent. to dumb it down for you in real life . one colour will absorb more light  were anther will reflect more light. camouflage is a good example of how to make things appear to disappear. Take the op photo. open it in say simple  paint.Then invert the colours, then do a comparison match of the building & water, buildings & sky. those of a more closely knit colour will blend over distance to  those that substantially stand out.                 

Quote from: V on May 10, 2014, 10:13:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.

Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.

Except aetheric winds don't work like that at all. You're comparing literal wind to something that equates to dark matter.

Quote from: V on May 10, 2014, 10:13:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.

Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.

Ether is a completely different thing entirely. Please refer to it as aether.

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

That sounds awful.  Have you tried these:

Quote from: LukeB on May 10, 2014, 10:18:20 PM

Quote from: V on May 10, 2014, 10:13:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.

Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.

Except aetheric winds don't work like that at all. You're comparing literal wind to something that equates to dark matter.

Quote from: LukeB on May 10, 2014, 10:18:20 PM

Quote from: V on May 10, 2014, 10:13:12 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

The ether fills any hole in your theory, regardless of the more obvious explanation.

Another point is winds (and fluid mechanics in general) are inherently unstable; for example, try making a sheet of paper hover with a hair dryer. The sheet vibrates uncontrollably; if the Earth is being pushed upwards by winds too, we would be feeling some seriously intense vibrations.

Ether is a completely different thing entirely. Please refer to it as aether.

Fluid mechanics are still applicable though; essentially if you get a large number of independent particles, each one will have very slight differences in their direction. Once vast amounts of those particles collide with a surface, the energy transferred is completely randomised (resulting in what we know as vibration). One way of reducing it's effects are to get the surface to help gradually nudge those directions into a more common one - aka streamlining - and if this were the case, then the underside of Earth would have to be a giant cone. Streamlined objects still feel turbulence though. Jroa describes the Aether as experiencing eddying, thus turbulence and fluid mechanics are definitely in action there.

The alternative is if you're meaning to describe aether as something more like magnetism or gravity, where the "particles" (simplification) follow a strict direction defined by the interacting objects, preventing vibration. In this case though, there is an inherent issue with how you describe it's formation process; i.e. one common blob of stuff forming into aether and phlogiston, as they are fundamentally different substances.

A major hole though is what's the source of the energy in the first place; if the aetheral winds are causing Earth to constantly accelerate, where is that energy coming from? The only explanation I can think of is if flat Earth is actually moving in a circle; it's still accelerating, but it's not gaining any speed/ energy. That resolves the "what happens when the flat Earth hits c" problem, because it never would, but then there's a whole new set of holes; how does it go in a circle, for example.

Where is gravity coming from? Mass? If so, why?

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 10, 2014, 10:11:36 PM

Quote from: acesuv on May 10, 2014, 10:07:52 PM

unfortunately, FE fails to explain why at lower elevations gravity is stronger than at higher elevations - something that does not happen in an accelerating reference frame

Aethric winds.

That sounds awful.  Have you tried these:

Those don't work.

Where is gravity coming from?
 Mass?

Yes.

If so, why?

Don't know.

Next.

I'm sure you've heard all the explanations before, but for clarity, mass is believed to distort space-time. The larger the mass, the bigger the distortion. The simplicity of that model is what makes it so powerful; it has not yet failed to describe something in the known Universe (unlike the Newton model before it). Planet formation becomes clear; the pattern planets follow around their host star becomes even clearer. Predictions based on that model have been applied in reality with the expected outcomes being seen, further verifying it. For example, black holes were predicted and have been observed. Clocks on GPS satellites must be constantly re-synced in order to prevent "location drift"; that's where the GPS network gradually looses accuracy over time and can result in a GPS receiver believing it's in completely the wrong location, simply because the GPS satellites are travelling fast enough to be moving through time differently.

The point is though, can Aether describe any of those things; planet and star formation, for example, without gravity there to clump matter together. Or for that matter, can it describe why Earth isn't vibrating itself apart, or where it's energy is even coming from - these are all things which make Aether much less likely as a theory as they all need to be feasibly filled in to compete with the accepted gravitational model.

Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.  Yet, you people lap it up anyway.  Double standard much? 

Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.

In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 01:16:32 PM

Gravity does not explain the formation, or more specifically, the ability to sustain a galaxy.

In what way - how doesn't it describe a galaxy?

Gravity does not work on the Galactic scale.  That is why your scientists had to invent Dark Matter: to make up for the short comings of your Gravity Theory. 

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 11, 2014, 11:59:41 AM

Where is gravity coming from?
 Mass?

Yes.

Quote

If so, why?

Don't know.

Next.

And this is an acceptable answer while aether is not?