Seeing the sun

  • 72 Replies
  • 17848 Views
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2008, 02:44:40 PM »
There can be no doubt that light bends. but it is the way FET says it bends that is non-sensical. FET says that light from above is bent so as to appear horizontal. This means that light from above must be bent in differant directions across the entire sky, coming together just for you so you can see stars all around. it also means that some light doesn't bend since we can see stars above our heads.

it is quite simple. This is impossible.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2008, 02:46:55 PM »
No, it doesn't say any of those things. And nonsensical is one word.
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2008, 02:50:03 PM »
No offense, but im not a believe in this theory. You are saying that the light is slightly away from directly above and comes down and bends towards us so it looks like its at the horizon right? Meaning that the light had to ben overall close to 90 degrees? This may seem ignorant to your theory, but what causes this bend?
You think that the massive evidence on the opposing side is negated due to your assumption that you must be correct due to your evidence. poor deductive reasoning.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2008, 02:51:18 PM »
saying that something bends starlight from verticle to horizontal means that what i said must happen, since it is the only way.

Oh, and thank you for correcting my spelling, maybe i can help you with your physics.

*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2008, 03:09:01 PM »
I never said it is bent from vertical to horizontal. Read the posts. Stars which are nearly vertical have their light bent to make them appear to be close to the horizon. As for the reason, it is the general consensus that in addition to the universal accelerator (UA) there is also a wave of electromagnetic radiation, also accelerating. (EA)
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2008, 12:47:04 AM »
Quote
when you look at the sky at night you see stars in all directions that you looks, so General Souchebag doesnt it make sense that at least one of those stars light comes from the same direction of the suns? Now that that is al cleared up, can anyone explain why sun light "bends" and starlight doesnt?

The only stars you see are the ones directly above your immediate area.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2008, 01:33:43 AM »
Quote
The only stars you see are the ones directly above your immediate area.

If this were true then the density of stars would be greatest above your head, and fall off towards the horizon. Yet this isn't the case.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2008, 01:49:25 AM »
Quote
The only stars you see are the ones directly above your immediate area.

If this were true then the density of stars would be greatest above your head, and fall off towards the horizon. Yet this isn't the case.

You don't understand how bendy light theory works. Everything is spread out around your head like a dome.

The downwards light from the sun, stars, and moon are all pulled upwards by the electro-magnetic attraction of the heavens. Here's an illustration with the sun's light:



The sun produces light from all areas, of course. The rays not in this diagram are bent upwards and make U-Turns into the cosmos without ever touching the earth.

As we can see, with this mechanism the stars wouldn't pile up at the horizon since visibility is limited to an area under the celestial body and visibility is well distributed across the angles of the sky as the bodies pass overhead.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 01:56:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2008, 02:05:48 AM »
I never said it is bent from vertical to horizontal. Read the posts. Stars which are nearly vertical have their light bent to make them appear to be close to the horizon. As for the reason, it is the general consensus that in addition to the universal accelerator (UA) there is also a wave of electromagnetic radiation, also accelerating. (EA)

Bendy light doesn't work well with gears theory.


You may notice that bendy light theory would work fine if there were just the one northern gear, but you add even one southern gear, and you run into problems where those 2 gears converge. To an observer at a point near the equator rim stars would appear to be changing distance from each other over the course of the night.

What is this wave of electromagnetic radiation (EA), and what is it's function? I've never heard of it.

Quote
when you look at the sky at night you see stars in all directions that you looks, so General Douchebag doesn't it make sense that at least one of those stars light comes from the same direction of the suns? Now that that is all cleared up, can anyone explain why sun light "bends" and starlight doesn't?

The only stars you see are the ones directly above your immediate area.

What if you happen to be in one of these immediate areas?

Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2008, 02:11:07 AM »
Quote
You may notice that bendy light theory would work fine if there were just the one northern gear, but you add even one southern gear, and you run into problems where those 2 gears converge. To an observer at a point near the equator rim stars would appear to be changing distance from each other over the course of the night.

At the equator the stars do seem to converge and then spread apart. Look at star trails from the equator:

« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 02:25:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2008, 02:15:11 AM »
Quote
What if you happen to be in one of these immediate areas?

There are two Flat Earth maps. One is the United Nations map where observers on the bottom tips of Australia and South America would be looking at different gear systems when they look Southward. And then there's the Columbus/Magellan map where observers on those continents would be looking at the same stellar system when they looked Southwards.

Which map is true remains to be seen. There would need to be a coordinated effort to study the southern stars from all parts of the Southern Hemidisk.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 02:27:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2008, 04:02:06 AM »
Quote
What if you happen to be in one of these immediate areas?

There are two Flat Earth maps. One is the United Nations map where observers on the bottom tips of Australia and South America would be looking at different gear systems when they look Southward. And then there's the Columbus/Magellan map where observers on those continents would be looking at the same stellar system when they looked Southwards.

Which map is true remains to be seen. There would need to be a coordinated effort to study the southern stars from all parts of the Southern Hemidisk.
This is a poorly disguised switching maneuver, where you use two incompatible models interchangeably, avoiding the need to address the problems of either model.

If you want to consider the so-called Columbus/Magellan map, then explain why the stars appear to circle around the North Pole, instead of over Africa. If you want to consider the "UN Flag map", then explain why, with or without bendy light, the stars just do not appear where everyone since the Babilonians have seen them.

It would be wiser for the FE'rs to just forget that the Columbus/Magellan map ever existed, since it destroys every explanation ever concocted by FE'rs since Rowbotham.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2008, 08:16:42 AM »
Quote

You may notice that bendy light theory would work fine if there were just the one northern gear, but you add even one southern gear, and you run into problems where those 2 gears converge. To an observer at a point near the equator rim stars would appear to be changing distance from each other over the course of the night.
At the equator the stars do seem to converge and then spread apart:


Quote
What if you happen to be in one of these immediate areas?

There are two Flat Earth Maps. One is the United Nations map where observers on the bottom tips of Australia and South America would be looking at different gear systems when they look Southward. And then there's the Columbus/Magellan map where observers on those continents would be looking at the same stellar system when they looked Southwards.

Which map is true remains to be seen. There would need to be a coordinated effort to study the southern stars from all parts of the Southern Hemidisk.

Nice double take Tom...

First off, that's a wide angle shot you keep posting... I'm pretty sure I pointed that out to you before. This is a much better representation of star paths in a full sky. Even given the wide angle nature of the image you referenced, there's nothing near the variance that would be expected with gears theory/bendy light theory.

Second off, it's not just the "United Nations" map, it's Volivia's map, and Rowbotham's map, and the map put out by this site's promoters. All the same map.



Do you really want me to go all out in showing that there won't be a "coordinated effort" needed to debunk your new map?



First point, appearance. This map looks like warped clipart garbage with MS paint frosting. What islands are the "other islands" drawn in on the left? What's the "boundless continent" referenced in the left border? What are those 2 light blue things clipping Antarctica? Why are the North and South American continents labeled "atlantic"? If the ice wall exists on this map, then where is that in reference to all of this?


Second point, citation. You cite this as Columbus's and Magellan's map, but give only a nutter's website as reference. I've never seen a 15'th century map with that perfect a representation of Africa. Show me a pic, a scan, or even a verifiable reference on a refutable site to a map similar to what you cite as a historical document. If you can't show a map, point us to the passages cited on the nutter website that you deemed sufficient, even with their lack of a real map, to cite as "proof" of a Columbus/Magellan conspiracy to all of us here. Please do so today, so you don't taint my Columbus day celebrations.


Third point, compass readings.

If you start at the north pole, and follow your compass in a straight line, you'll get to the south pole, or at least the ice wall. This works with RE and classical FE maps. Not so much with your new one. Yours curves and in one instance dead ends...


Fourth point, pacific oceanic voyages.

To go from the eastern coast of South America to the western coast of Australia you need only go in a line. RE says a straight line. Classic FE says a curved line. Tom's new map says line paths of that nature cannot exist.

To get from one point to the other on the new map, you have to take a longer coastal path.

That longer coastal path would be noted and/or observed by most/all sailors making that journey. Those voyages would be even longer that those classical FET maps would predict.


Fifth point, Star gears theory. I'm not sure whether you think this new map has 4 gears(1 north, 3 south), like this.

Or just 2 gears, like you seem to indicate.

Either way, gears theory for both setups have so many holes I'm not going to bother posting any arguments yet. They should be apparent to even a casual poster. If you want to continue to argue this map, cite which gears theory you espouse. I'll debate that.


My final point is that I've saved my post in it's entirety as an html document, and will do so from now on. If the mods decide to make this thread go away like they've made so many like it go away in the past I'll still have my arguments here pocketed for future use. I don't like wasting my time.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 08:19:18 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2008, 06:57:22 AM »
I celebrated my Columbus day with no regrets, despite the lack of counter-arguments. I have a new point too.

Sixth point, sun paths.


Charting a circular path for the sun at equinox positions relegates Australia and southern South America to almost polar positions in terms of coverage.

I've put out six points that dispute the validity of Toms referenced map. If I don't get six counter points, I'll consider this a win for me.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2008, 07:01:10 AM »
What makes you think that the southern  system is exactly as large as the northern system?

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2008, 07:13:44 AM »
What makes you think that the southern  system is exactly as large as the northern system?

What are you referencing? The gears or your maps scaling? If you're going to counter my points cite which point you're countering. I'd like you to counter all points if you can. I made 6 points, and labeled them as such. Please make a post where you cite them as such and counter them, as they apply to the map you cite as historically applying to Columbus/Magellan. Please note that your citation of this map as a "Columbus/Magellan" map is one of those points.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2008, 03:59:21 PM »
wow, typical answer. Given that he is asking the question he is asking for you to prove it.

We cannot see the Sun at night. Therefore, the light is not reaching us, so it must be bending away.

QED

Then why doesn't the light from Jupiter or Mars bend away?
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2008, 04:07:27 PM »
Then why doesn't the light from Jupiter or Mars bend away?

It does.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #48 on: October 14, 2008, 04:20:01 PM »
Then why doesn't the light from Jupiter or Mars bend away?

It does.

Then how do we see them?
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #49 on: October 14, 2008, 04:44:05 PM »
Then how do we see them?

You might well ask how we see the Sun, by that reasoning.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #50 on: October 14, 2008, 05:43:33 PM »
Then how do we see them?

You might well ask how we see the Sun, by that reasoning.

Then why can't i see the sun, when on the same night, I can see stars light years away on the horizon?
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #51 on: October 14, 2008, 05:47:39 PM »
Quote
Then why can't i see the sun, when on the same night, I can see stars light years away on the horizon?

Actually, you can't. The stars are fainter than the sun and fade out into the atmosphere before meeting the horizon.

http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1210491/eng/

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #52 on: October 14, 2008, 05:54:58 PM »
Then why can't i see the sun, when on the same night, I can see stars light years away on the horizon?

The stars are not light years away. Don't apply your RE dogma to the FE model.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #53 on: October 14, 2008, 05:56:56 PM »
Quote
Then why can't i see the sun, when on the same night, I can see stars light years away on the horizon?

Actually, you can't. The stars are fainter than the sun and fade out into the atmosphere before meeting the horizon.

http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1210491/eng/

well then, CLOSE to the horizon anyways...

Then why can't i see the sun, when on the same night, I can see stars light years away on the horizon?

The stars are not light years away. Don't apply your RE dogma to the FE model.

fine then "very far" away  ::)
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #54 on: October 14, 2008, 05:59:27 PM »
fine then "very far" away  ::)

They aren't significantly further away than the Sun.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2008, 06:12:38 PM »
fine then "very far" away  ::)

They aren't significantly further away than the Sun.

doesn't quite answer my question...
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #56 on: October 14, 2008, 06:15:59 PM »
doesn't quite answer my question...

Your question doesn't make any sense. When the Sun is directly overhead, we can see it. The same can be said for stars. When either the Sun or the stars are far away, the light bends away from us, which is why we can't see all the stars at once.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #57 on: October 14, 2008, 06:26:42 PM »
doesn't quite answer my question...

Your question doesn't make any sense. When the Sun is directly overhead, we can see it. The same can be said for stars. When either the Sun or the stars are far away, the light bends away from us, which is why we can't see all the stars at once.

So when the stars are a little bit over the horizon, they are directly over head?
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #58 on: October 14, 2008, 06:28:41 PM »
So when the stars are a little bit over the horizon, they are directly over head?

Not directly, no. But they aren't very far away from being overhead, either.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Seeing the sun
« Reply #59 on: October 14, 2008, 06:35:00 PM »
So when the stars are a little bit over the horizon, they are directly over head?

Not directly, no. But they aren't very far away from being overhead, either.

so shouldn't the moon seem just a little bigger at the highest point , then when it just rises or sets?
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?