Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Parsifal

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86  Next >
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unable to post in FE Projects
« on: July 14, 2018, 08:22:41 PM »
I asked about this on the day we reshuffled the boards and never received a reply:

For now, I've left Flat Earth Projects with the same permissions as the Zetetic Council board had. Was the intent to open it up to the public, or to keep it restricted to people working on projects?

I've now opened this up.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Recap post
« on: June 24, 2018, 09:22:51 AM »
So the bulk of this, the actual forum restructure, is done. I haven't yet done the Debate Club header because it wasn't entirely clear to me how to proceed. I'm not even sure if Tom's original intent referred to the forum listing or the topic listing within the forum.

For now, I've left Flat Earth Projects with the same permissions as the Zetetic Council board had. Was the intent to open it up to the public, or to keep it restricted to people working on projects?

Status Notices / Re: Scheduled maintenance, 2018-06-24
« on: June 24, 2018, 09:20:55 AM »

Announcements / Debate Club forum restructure
« on: June 23, 2018, 12:15:53 PM »
Hello Earthers of all shapes and sizes!

In the hope of facilitating more constructive and honest debate, we will be restructuring the forums tomorrow (2018-06-24, 09:00 UTC) while down for maintenance. To minimise confusion during the transition, you will not be able to access the forum while the changes are being made.

A summary of the changes that will take place:

1) Create Flat Earth Investigations - Investigate authoritative claims on any topic. Question our institutions and challenge conventional wisdom.

2) Rename Flat Earth General to Flat Earth Community.

3) Merge FE debate, FE Q&A, Rename to Flat Earth Theory - A place to examine the Flat Earth Theory.

4) Rename Flat Earth Information Repository to Flat Earth Media

5) Rename Zetetic Council Forum to Flat Earth Projects. Place the Earth Not a Globe Workshop as a subforum within Flat Earth Projects (Ideally, not seen on the main Table of Contents page)

Status Notices / Scheduled maintenance, 2018-06-24
« on: June 23, 2018, 12:08:36 PM »
The homepage, forum, wiki and IRC will be going offline for up to 30 minutes on 2018-06-24, between 09:00 and 09:30 UTC.

For convenience, this means:

EDT (USA east coast):
2018-06-24, 05:00-05:30

2018-06-24, 10:00-10:30

CEST (Most of Europe):
2018-06-24, 11:00-11:30

AEST (Australia east coast):
2018-06-24, 19:00-19:30

The intent is to install security updates on the server which hosts the homepage, forum, wiki and IRC. These will be non-disruptive to functionality, as the server is running a stable OS release that gets critical fixes only.

We will also be restructuring the upper fora at this time, which will be announced separately.

Status Notices / Unplanned outage, 2018-06-21
« on: June 23, 2018, 12:06:00 PM »
From about 04:22 to 05:32 UTC on 2018-06-21, the homepage, forum, wiki and IRC were offline due to an outage with the hosting provider.

There is no problem if the rays converge at some point high above the Earth where nobody is ever going to see them. What's important is that there is no noticeable convergence at altitudes people actually visit.

None of this is getting us any closer to a foundation for your claims in the OP.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Recap post
« on: June 20, 2018, 06:29:51 PM »
If no more dissenting opinions are raised before this weekend, I will implement these changes this weekend.

I agree with Pete on the point of using sticky threads, though. We don't want to clutter up the forum homepage too much, especially on small screens where people are going to be doing a lot of scrolling as it is.

If two light rays intersect at a point, and you place an eye at that point, both of those rays are going to enter the eye. The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions

*shrug* don't tell it to me, tell it to science

Yes, I understand how focus works. This isn't at all the scenario we're talking about. If you really can't see that there is a huge difference between light rays diverging from a point and getting focused back to another point, and light rays getting bent so that they appear to come from completely different directions, then I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain the self-evident.

I don't know why we're even having this conversation. You already conceded the point that your diagrams show the curvature of light incorrectly. Why is the burden of proof still on me to show that an incorrect model would make incorrect predictions?

er, no, i don't think you know how an eye works... only the paths of light that enter the eye will be visible. The diagram just shows all of the possible paths of light: something is visible if there is a path of light entering the eye. The eye will "focus" a number of rays entering the lens at certain angles from the same point by converging them to a single point. If you drew all of the rays of light in the room you're in right now it might freak you out. It doesn't look "blurry" though does it? There's light bouncing around all of the place, they just don't enter the eye, or they enter the eye at the wrong angle

If two light rays intersect at a point, and you place an eye at that point, both of those rays are going to enter the eye. The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions. If it were somehow able to do that, then mirrors would appear as black objects because all of their light would be "focused" onto the original. Can you see how absurd this claim is?

But yeah i get you're point, light rays are pulled in a perpendicular direction and maintaining the same speed. That still seems a bit "odd" to me but i accept it, and I don't believe it effects what i'm saying in the slightest: the paths of light that i assumed were bending up sharply hit the ground anyway... they're irrelevant to my point just because they hit the ground at a slightly different angle. Roughly speaking: light rays are bending upwards. My point still holds as far as i can tell.

No, you never had a point to begin with. As a consequence of different rays having different curves in your diagram, they cross over each other all the time. This means that, for most observers, the same point on the Sun's edge will be observable in multiple directions at once.

The technical term for this is "blur", and you're going to have a tough time making the case that the Sun is not observable as a coherent circular image in the sky. If your diagram cannot even model a single point on the Sun correctly, how do you hope to produce a meaningful description of what the entire Sun looks like?

Now, can this apply to light? Does it make sense for EA to slow light rays down?
You tell me?

Well, the speed of light is easily measurable and has never been observed to vary significantly. Not only is it measurable, it is calculable based on the nature of light. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with EA, and EA cannot violate established laws of nature.

Are we saying light stays at a constant velocity, but can also be "pulled" away from straight?

That cannot be true because velocity is a vector quantity. What you mean is that light travels at a constant speed. You may have heard of the speed of light before, it's a well known constant.

This is high school physics. If you don't grasp these fundamentals then you are going to have a difficult time understanding EAT.

I'm not entirely sure that makes mathematical sense for something to be present pulling something upwards, yet is incapable of slowing it down, but i'll put some thought in to it.

EA operates in an upward direction, but the light is not pulled directly upwards. The acceleration is always perpendicular to the direction of a light ray.

Here's a hint: The reason why projectiles fired at a higher angle have a sharper curve where they reach maximum height is because they are moving more slowly. More of their initial velocity was in the vertical dimension, so gravity slows them down more than those fired at a lower angle.

Now, can this apply to light? Does it make sense for EA to slow light rays down?

I eagerly await your thoughts.

If EA is a force pulling upwards, is it not a trajectory like any other trajectory? It's just like firing an arrow, but upside down? I don't understand what the alternative would be?

Have you considered learning about the ways in which light is different from projectiles? That might clear up your confusion, and is not at all specific to EAT.

Even if we did treat these paths as "trajectories", which is not strictly accurate, there is one important property of light which makes your trajectory-plotting grossly inaccurate. Can you work out what it is?

OK so here's a clearer picture of what i'm thinking. If we plot a large number of light rays from a single point, then we can describe an "area" where that point is visible.

Ignoring being told why you're wrong and posting another diagram with exactly the same problems is not going to make any difference to the validity of your "argument".

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2018
« on: June 16, 2018, 07:15:34 PM »
Both the Netherlands and South Africa failed to qualify, so I have to pretend to support Australia. Worst World Cup ever tbh

I don't think this is right. The path of the rays with greater verticality wouldn't make sharp u-turns like that were it not for the earth blocking them. They'd continued in more shallow arc before reaching horizontal and then continuing to curve upward.

Not sure if that matters. I haven't read the rest of your post yet, but that first diagram didn't depict what I think EA is postulating about the path of light.

I was going to point this out as well. Every light ray, being affected the same way by EA, should have exactly the same shape of curve. It will just be in a different position.

Since your entire argument is based on your diagrams, which for whatever reason treat different light rays in different ways based on who knows what criteria, I don't think there's a case here.

In this case, I'd say it's more like opening your front door when you already know perfectly well who's on the other side.

And this is why you shouldn't be touching that setting.

Well, that cleared everything up. Thanks for explaining. ::)

If you don't understand why Pete would think it's a terrible idea, you shouldn't be touching that setting.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 12, 2018, 07:01:30 PM »
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.

Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 86  Next >