concord

  • 59 Replies
  • 5380 Views
concord
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2007, 05:07:12 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "edlloyd"
Behind the plane?? Passeneger windows are the side of the plane? Why would need to see behind the plane? Do u mean 360 view? U said it dips because of atmosphere distortion.

Down here, the atmosphere is denser, so lookin across the pacific (longer than he would of seen lookin to the ground), more atmopshere to look through and denser as well...so why would this affect u told of be even more exagarated at sea level?



Erm, well if he's looking out a plane window, his view is restricted to a small window. What i'm saying is that from his vantage point, he could only observe some of the circle (the rest was under the plane, etc, such as if it was a glass plane, he would be able to see much more of it)

Going by what you're saying, if there's more atmosphere closer to the ground (as there is) then he's effectively having to look through ALL the atmosphere. At ground level, you only need to look through some of it. I'm really finding it difficult to understand your examples, perhaps you could give them a bit more detail?


AT the bottom of the plane? U would see the groud mate, in a straight line. What's that contradict?

No, not at all. If I look across the pacific, from Australia to America about 7000miles away or something. That 7000miles worth of heavy atmosphere to look through. In a plane looking, at that height, its 5miles down ish, so less athomsphere to look through.

You understand now?

concord
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2007, 05:08:53 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "edlloyd"
Behind the plane?? Passeneger windows are the side of the plane? Why would need to see behind the plane? Do u mean 360 view? U said it dips because of atmosphere distortion.

Down here, the atmosphere is denser, so lookin across the pacific (longer than he would of seen lookin to the ground), more atmopshere to look through and denser as well...so why would this affect u told of be even more exagarated at sea level?



Erm, well if he's looking out a plane window, his view is restricted to a small window. What i'm saying is that from his vantage point, he could only observe some of the circle (the rest was under the plane, etc, such as if it was a glass plane, he would be able to see much more of it)

Going by what you're saying, if there's more atmosphere closer to the ground (as there is) then he's effectively having to look through ALL the atmosphere. At ground level, you only need to look through some of it. I'm really finding it difficult to understand your examples, perhaps you could give them a bit more detail?


Small window doesnt matter at that distance of a focal point.

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2007, 05:17:52 PM »
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

you can only see so far in every direction, due to the atmosphere becoming too thick, and distorting your view.

If he's in a concord, he can see a circular field of vision, which fades of evenly in every direction, due to being surrounded by air/atmosphere. Obviously he can see the ground, as it's closer to him than the horizon (by horizon i mean the point which he can no longer differentiate between land and air).

if he's inside a plane, his view is restricted to that window. There are walls on either side, and he's not necessarily able to view from other windows, so he would not observe a circular field of vision. He would observe the ground being clear, until the horizon (remember my definition),  which would be curved, due to it being the edge of his circular field of vision.


At ground level, as you said, there is much more atmosphere between you and another continent, whcih is why you are unable to view America from Australia etc.

concord
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2007, 05:22:46 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

you can only see so far in every direction, due to the atmosphere becoming too thick, and distorting your view.

If he's in a concord, he can see a circular field of vision, which fades of evenly in every direction, due to being surrounded by air/atmosphere. Obviously he can see the ground, as it's closer to him than the horizon (by horizon i mean the point which he can no longer differentiate between land and air).

if he's inside a plane, his view is restricted to that window. There are walls on either side, and he's not necessarily able to view from other windows, so he would not observe a circular field of vision. He would observe the ground being clear, until the horizon (remember my definition),  which would be curved, due to it being the edge of his circular field of vision.


At ground level, as you said, there is much more atmosphere between you and another continent, whcih is why you are unable to view America from Australia etc.


What you explained, there, does not take away from that he said he saw the curve in the earth? U originally that was due to atmospheric distortion. So why it is not even more with my example of lookin across the pacific?

?

RenaissanceMan

concord
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2007, 05:23:16 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

you can only see so far in every direction, due to the atmosphere becoming too thick, and distorting your view.

If he's in a concord, he can see a circular field of vision, which fades of evenly in every direction, due to being surrounded by air/atmosphere. Obviously he can see the ground, as it's closer to him than the horizon (by horizon i mean the point which he can no longer differentiate between land and air).

if he's inside a plane, his view is restricted to that window. There are walls on either side, and he's not necessarily able to view from other windows, so he would not observe a circular field of vision. He would observe the ground being clear, until the horizon (remember my definition),  which would be curved, due to it being the edge of his circular field of vision.


Is that right. So... has anyone done studies as to how far you can actually 'see' in the atmosphere? No? How is it that I can clearly see stars just over the horizon, and then they don't decrease in apparent intensity as they travers up in the sky? And with NO spherical abborations! Huh! It's like that FE atmospheric distortion crap is all bullshit!

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2007, 05:24:44 PM »
Quote from: "edlloyd"
What you explained, there, does not take away from that he said he saw the curve in the earth? U originally that was due to atmospheric distortion. So why it is not even more with my example of lookin across the pacific?


I don't understand where you expect to see curvature when looking across ground level..

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2007, 05:26:53 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Is that right. So... has anyone done studies as to how far you can actually 'see' in the atmosphere? No? How is it that I can clearly see stars just over the horizon, and then they don't decrease in apparent intensity as they travers up in the sky? And with NO spherical abborations! Huh! It's like that FE atmospheric distortion crap is all bullshit!


1) Clearly none that you or I have read
2) How do you know the stars you can see at the horizon aren't much brighter than you expect, and the atmosphere is distorting your view?
3) In your opinion.

concord
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2007, 05:31:34 PM »
U said Rick....

"I believe you thought you saw curvature, but it was just the illusion given by not being able to see any further, due to atmospheric distortion. Other may give a different answer (be patient) but they're my thoughts"

So looking across would be a a longer distance than down in a plane. Would it now? So, the longer the distance, the more (denser down here, than up there) atmosphere to look through. So if the curvature, 'visual effect', was caused by the atmosphere, why would it not be even more down here when I looked across the pacific when I was in Taiwan towards the americas.

If you understand that...Welll

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2007, 05:33:22 PM »
Quote from: "edlloyd"
U said Rick....

"I believe you thought you saw curvature, but it was just the illusion given by not being able to see any further, due to atmospheric distortion. Other may give a different answer (be patient) but they're my thoughts"

So looking across would be a a longer distance than down in a plane. Would it now? So, the longer the distance, the more (denser down here, than up there) atmosphere to look through. So if the curvature, 'visual effect', was caused by the atmosphere, why would it not be even more down here when I looked across the pacific when I was in Taiwan towards the americas.

If you understand that...Welll


I would imagine the effect would be the same, but harder to observe, due to the lack of detail when looking out to sea.

?

RenaissanceMan

concord
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2007, 05:35:32 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Is that right. So... has anyone done studies as to how far you can actually 'see' in the atmosphere? No? How is it that I can clearly see stars just over the horizon, and then they don't decrease in apparent intensity as they travers up in the sky? And with NO spherical abborations! Huh! It's like that FE atmospheric distortion crap is all bullshit!


1) Clearly none that you or I have read
2) How do you know the stars you can see at the horizon aren't much brighter than you expect, and the atmosphere is distorting your view?
3) In your opinion.


Response to 2: Because there is absolutely no reason to think that the stars change their intensity as they move across the sky. That would be obviously apparent to different observers.

concord
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2007, 05:38:08 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "edlloyd"
U said Rick....

"I believe you thought you saw curvature, but it was just the illusion given by not being able to see any further, due to atmospheric distortion. Other may give a different answer (be patient) but they're my thoughts"

So looking across would be a a longer distance than down in a plane. Would it now? So, the longer the distance, the more (denser down here, than up there) atmosphere to look through. So if the curvature, 'visual effect', was caused by the atmosphere, why would it not be even more down here when I looked across the pacific when I was in Taiwan towards the americas.

If you understand that...Welll


I would imagine the effect would be the same, but harder to observe, due to the lack of detail when looking out to sea.


lack of detail?? wot? talkin about the horizon curving remember? U dont need detail to sea that across a bland ocean.

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2007, 05:38:30 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Response to 2: Because there is absolutely no reason to think that the stars change their intensity as they move across the sky. That would be obviously apparent to different observers.


Stars don't move across the sky. The earth rotates. Have you ever stood and watched a particular star on it's "journey across the sky" and noted it's intensity?

concord
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2007, 05:46:52 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Response to 2: Because there is absolutely no reason to think that the stars change their intensity as they move across the sky. That would be obviously apparent to different observers.


Stars don't move across the sky. The earth rotates. Have you ever stood and watched a particular star on it's "journey across the sky" and noted it's intensity?



Right...I'm gonna this beer, go outside in the freezing and have a fag (ciggerette for you non English), whilst looking at the stars.

Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?

?

RenaissanceMan

concord
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2007, 05:53:42 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Response to 2: Because there is absolutely no reason to think that the stars change their intensity as they move across the sky. That would be obviously apparent to different observers.


Stars don't move across the sky. The earth rotates. Have you ever stood and watched a particular star on it's "journey across the sky" and noted it's intensity?


I'm sorry, where in the FAQ does it imply that the earth rotates?

concord
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2007, 05:53:53 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "adder"
what would a more infomed response be then?


I believe you thought you saw curvature, but it was just the illusion given by not being able to see any further, due to atmospheric distortion. Other may give a different answer (be patient) but they're my thoughts.


Could you explain how that illusion works? What would make the earth seem curved at this altitude?

Why would not beeing able to see farther create an illusion?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2007, 05:55:53 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
I'm sorry, where in the FAQ does it imply that the earth rotates?


Where does it suggest it doesn't?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #46 on: February 08, 2007, 05:56:35 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "adder"
what would a more infomed response be then?


I believe you thought you saw curvature, but it was just the illusion given by not being able to see any further, due to atmospheric distortion. Other may give a different answer (be patient) but they're my thoughts.


Could you explain how that illusion works? What would make the earth seem curved at this altitude?

Why would not beeing able to see farther create an illusion?


Couldn't be bothered reading the rest of the thread? :|

concord
« Reply #47 on: February 08, 2007, 06:02:39 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "adder"
what would a more infomed response be then?


I believe you thought you saw curvature, but it was just the illusion given by not being able to see any further, due to atmospheric distortion. Other may give a different answer (be patient) but they're my thoughts.


Could you explain how that illusion works? What would make the earth seem curved at this altitude?

Why would not beeing able to see farther create an illusion?


Couldn't be bothered reading the rest of the thread? :|



Right...just had a ciggy outside. Its a stairy night. Half moon. The Stars were twinkling but the moon was not. How is so?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #48 on: February 08, 2007, 06:10:09 PM »
Quote from: "edlloyd"
Right...just had a ciggy outside. Its a stairy night. Half moon. The Stars were twinkling but the moon was not. How is so?


The moon is much closer than the stars.... The same reason as in RE?

?

RenaissanceMan

concord
« Reply #49 on: February 08, 2007, 06:15:36 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "edlloyd"
Right...just had a ciggy outside. Its a stairy night. Half moon. The Stars were twinkling but the moon was not. How is so?


The moon is much closer than the stars.... The same reason as in RE?



FAQ say moon is 3000 miles up, stars are 3100 miles up. Try again!

concord
« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2007, 06:17:15 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "edlloyd"
Right...just had a ciggy outside. Its a stairy night. Half moon. The Stars were twinkling but the moon was not. How is so?


The moon is much closer than the stars.... The same reason as in RE?



FAQ say moon is 3000 miles up, stars are 3100 miles up. Try again!


ahh...you beat me to that point. I wonder how they will 100miles makes a difference when looking up.

I can't expect a reply from this because why beat them to their bible

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2007, 06:22:15 PM »
I'm not sure what's meant by that (in the FAQ). That seems to suggest that the entire universe in no further away than 3100 miles. This isn't what I personally believe, as far as I'm concerned, the Universe is a spread out as it is in RE theory.

concord
« Reply #52 on: February 08, 2007, 06:25:08 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
I'm not sure what's meant by that (in the FAQ). That seems to suggest that the entire universe in no further away than 3100 miles. This isn't what I personally believe, as far as I'm concerned, the Universe is a spread out as it is in RE theory.


So then don't always tell us to refer to the FAQ bible then, when all RE have the same beliefs, yet FE do not.

?

RenaissanceMan

concord
« Reply #53 on: February 08, 2007, 06:27:35 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
I'm not sure what's meant by that (in the FAQ). That seems to suggest that the entire universe in no further away than 3100 miles. This isn't what I personally believe, as far as I'm concerned, the Universe is a spread out as it is in RE theory.


But that contradicts your own theory! Are you implying that an ENTIRE UNIVERSE with expansion and everything... one that pretty much (There are exceptions at the universe scale) obeys the newtonian laws of physics... is blasting along, accellerated by a UA at 9.8 m/ss for no apparent reason?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2007, 06:30:50 PM »
Quote from: "edlloyd"
Quote from: "Rick_James"
I'm not sure what's meant by that (in the FAQ). That seems to suggest that the entire universe in no further away than 3100 miles. This isn't what I personally believe, as far as I'm concerned, the Universe is a spread out as it is in RE theory.


So then don't always tell us to refer to the FAQ bible then, when all RE have the same beliefs, yet FE do not.


I refer people to the FAQ when I know the answer is there. I refer people to search when I know the answer has been posted.

Unless you can quote me telling someone to read the FAQ about how the stars are anything but 3100 miles away, this is a wasted post.

ALL RE'ers have the same beliefs?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2007, 06:32:16 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
But that contradicts your own theory! Are you implying that an ENTIRE UNIVERSE with expansion and everything... one that pretty much (There are exceptions at the universe scale) obeys the newtonian laws of physics... is blasting along, accellerated by a UA at 9.8 m/ss for no apparent reason?


I disagree with the FAQ on this point. At least I was honest. I see no reason the stars have to be that close.

concord
« Reply #56 on: February 08, 2007, 06:33:07 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
But that contradicts your own theory! Are you implying that an ENTIRE UNIVERSE with expansion and everything... one that pretty much (There are exceptions at the universe scale) obeys the newtonian laws of physics... is blasting along, accellerated by a UA at 9.8 m/ss for no apparent reason?


I disagree with the FAQ on this point. At least I was honest. I see no reason the stars have to be that close.


so u think all bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/ss?

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2007, 06:34:24 PM »
Quote from: "edlloyd"
so u think all bodies are accelerating at 9.8 m/ss?


Yes. As stated in FE Theory. I simply don't believe the stars are only 3100 miles away.

?

RenaissanceMan

concord
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2007, 06:36:15 PM »
Quote from: "Rick_James"
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
But that contradicts your own theory! Are you implying that an ENTIRE UNIVERSE with expansion and everything... one that pretty much (There are exceptions at the universe scale) obeys the newtonian laws of physics... is blasting along, accellerated by a UA at 9.8 m/ss for no apparent reason?


I disagree with the FAQ on this point. At least I was honest. I see no reason the stars have to be that close.


I'll give you the honest point. That's why I'm not going to rip your head off by pointing out that the FE concept (Using the UA) needs to have the entire universe located at the earth. I was going to use Stellar Parallax to do it... but I won't now, out of respect for your honesty.

?

Rick_James

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4311
  • Rick <3 Gayer
concord
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2007, 06:40:56 PM »
Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"
I'll give you the honest point. That's why I'm not going to rip your head off by pointing out that the FE concept (Using the UA) needs to have the entire universe located at the earth. I was going to use Stellar Parallax to do it... but I won't now, out of respect for your honesty.


It's nice to have a civil discussion listening to each other beliefs, yes?

I'm not convinced they all do need to be located "at the earth" - I know I've read recently of a slightly different theory about the universe still expanding from the big bang. Also, I don't really see how a big bang would have spat out a universe contained within 6200 miles of space, all moving in the same direction.

Let me reiterate, I disagree with some parts, and agree with others. I don't see why different theories detract from the concept at all.