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.
If this is utter nonsense, is it then correct to assume, that you believe Australia has the size one can find in usual sources like maps, wikipedia and other encyclopedias?You continue to misunderstand my point. My personal views are of utterly no significance to my objections to how CHL does things.
Sorry, which statement is utter nonsense?The idea that Australia is some 8000km across.
I find your English difficult to parse, by the way.I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure it's not perfect, but most people seem to cope just fine.
I used the word imply. So your claim, understood properly, is that no FE model implies the calculation he uses to calculate the distance between two points of different longitude, but identical latitude? Can you confirm please?No, I can't confirm that. One's standards of implication can vary greatly. To me, the statement is utter nonsense, and I can't think of model in which it would apply. This is why it is absolutely essential for the author to provide his reference material and justify his assumptions. He does not do that, simply because he is not capable of doing it.
I have no idea what EA theory is, simply putting down some possibilities seeing as the information is limitedAnd I already asked you to refrain from making things up - it will get you nowhere.
I'm well aware of what acceleration is: not lost in the slightest.Then please explain how your diagrams are consistent with the idea of constant upwards acceleration.
So again, going back to my image... if there is a force pushing light upwards, are there also forces pushing some light sideways?No.
Are you proposing EA as a complete alternative to perspective?No.
Or is it only an upwards force pulling light upwards?Nobody said it was a force, nor that only light would be affected.
If that's the case, why do train tracks converge? Why the lamps in my example move towards the middle? Is it just an extra force being applied on the light paths of "regular" perspective? (because this was presented as an alternative...)It was not presented as an alternative to perspective, and it is not one. It is an alternative explanation of sunrise and sunset from Rowbotham's perspective explanation.
When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth.So far, so good. We call this phenomenon "night".
So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.No, it wouldn't. Those light rays would never reach an observer.
Yes he is. He says that the distance implied by any FE model is 8,885km. Did you miss that?No, it just happens to be a lie. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
What particular belief or model is he supposed to be misrepresenting?No, that's the problem. He's not trying to represent any model.
That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.Oh, I see, by "tangential" you mean "at some point it is briefly tangential". Sure, for some light rays that will be the case sometimes.
Your point then is that a less simplistic version of the FE model might cut the mustard?No, my point is not something else from what I said. My point is that misrepresenting your opponent makes your argument largely worthless.
The FE model is that the earth is flat, according to him. Are you disputing that?It's precisely this kind of simplistic thinking that justifies the creation of strawmen.
That’s not true. The buffoonery aside, he is making clear and logical points that anyone on the opposing side must think about and address.The problem is that he makes up his own "opposing side" - and I doubt his imaginary friends are going to respond in any way that we could perceive.
but not behind or below the horizonThis is untrue. Eventually, some parts of the Sun would become invisible because all of the light emitted by them would curve away from the observer, rather than reach him. There is nothing tangential about it, because the acceleration is constant and upward. Making it something other than constant would create the problem you're describing.
You're asking me to explain to you why the contradiction I've given doesn't fit the EA diagram??No, I'm trying to get you to understand that what you're saying is internally inconsistent.
The rays of light starting from the sun, are they more like the first picture (emenating from the centre) or the second picture (essentially random in all directions).Neither accurately describes how light sources behave, regardless of whether you want to consider EA, FE or RE. That said, rabinoz is correct in that the bottom diagram is slightly less wrong.
.. yet you're the one who moderates (?) a website set up for your "society"...That was most certainly not the case in February 2017.
who's the tribal one here?Given your insistence on attacking me for having called someone out over a year ago, I think your question can be treated as rhetorical.
I disagree. Trump does not like it when someone gets angry at him. Trump does not like it when someone threatens them, even if it's justified.That's not disagreeing with me, that's telling me I'm correct. Trump doesn't care if North Korea's feelings are hurt. They are to behave, not to threaten him, and to play along with his insanity. They were not doing that, so the summit was briefly cancelled. They fell back in line, so the summit is back on. It'll likely continue wobbling.
Huh? The EA theory specifically shows light going downwards like a laser.No, it doesn't.
If light was going on all directions, then why not draw a diagram that shows that?Because it would be absolutely and thoroughly unreadable.
Also EA specifically shows that light at the edge curves towards distant viewers.Yes.
So if you DON'T believe that light from the sun starts by pointing straight downwards (like laser array)I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?
I'm going to focus on just one ray in your proposed diagram, and I'll ask you a simple question to help my understanding of what you're proposing.
But like I said above, wasn't the whole thing based on Bolton and Pence essentially threatening to topple North Korea's government ? (ie. the Lybia model)I'd be pissy too if someone did that.I don't think Trump cares if North Korea is upset. It's very much a "pray I do not alter [the deal] any further" situation.
Clearly the best course of action is to shrink it a little and make it his signature.Avatar, perhaps?
