[jroa]

We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.

So you have nothing more to say on this matter.

Have you looked out your window lately? 

[herewegoround]

We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.

So you have nothing more to say on this matter.

Have you looked out your window lately?

That's the only argument I have ever heard you put forward.

The distance to the horizon on a sphere is given by √((R+h)²-R²). Where R is the radius of the sphere and h is the height of your eyes above the sphere.

The angle between two vertical structures on on the surface of sphere is given by 180d/πR. Where d is the distance between the two structures.

If you were standing on a perfectly smooth sphere with a radius of 4000 miles and your eyes were a height of 1.7 metres above the surface of the sphere the horizon would be 2.9 miles away.

The distance between two vertical structures 2.9 miles apart on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles is 0.04°. From your position to the horizon, the sphere would have curved through an angle of 0.04°, that wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

If you were standing on a perfectly smooth sphere with a radius of 4000 miles what you would see is essentially an approximately flat circle with a radius of 2.9 miles. It would just seem like a flat plane.

On the Earth there are buildings, trees, hills and a whole host of other features. It is not obvious looking out your window that the Earth is round.

Can you please stop using this lame argument that has been debunked multiple times.

[herewegoround]

Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.

Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.

I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.

Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.

[Ghost of V]

Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.

Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.

I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.

Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.

I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.

And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.

[herewegoround]

Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.

Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.

I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.

Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.

I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.

And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.

The Aetheric Whirlpool isn't a theory. For it to be a proper theory you would have provide a mathematical model. You have to specify some fundamental processes and describe them mathematically.

Flat Earth labs? And where, pray tell, are the flat Earth labs?

Water bends light because of refraction, it is a well understood idea in physics. If you want a really good explanation of this at the quantum level read Richard Feynman's book QED.

Right, so I am indoctrinated. The old fall back position of every flat Earth proponent when they can't argue their case. You are all so tediously predictable. Where is your evidence that I am not thinking for myself. I have put forward 8 arguments that I figured out entirely for myself. I have backed them up with evidence and I have shown that the flat Earth model doesn't even come close to predicting what we say. There is no way of making it work. You have failed to counter any of my arguments yet you are talking to me as if you put me in my place.

I have never in my life come across a more revoltingly dishonest community than that of the flat Earth believers.

[Ghost of V]

Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.

Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.

I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.

Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.

I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.

And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.

The Aetheric Whirlpool isn't a theory. For it to be a proper theory you would have provide a mathematical model. You have to specify some fundamental processes and describe them mathematically.

Flat Earth labs? And where, pray tell, are the flat Earth labs?

Water bends light because of refraction, it is a well understood idea in physics. If you want a really good explanation of this at the quantum level read Richard Feynman's book QED.

Right, so I am indoctrinated. The old fall back position of every flat Earth proponent when they can't argue their case. You are all so tediously predictable. Where is your evidence that I am not thinking for myself. I have put forward 8 arguments that I figured out entirely for myself. I have backed them up with evidence and I have shown that the flat Earth model doesn't even come close to predicting what we say. There is no way of making it work. You have failed to counter any of my arguments yet you are talking to me as if you put me in my place.

I have never in my life come across a more revoltingly dishonest community than that of the flat Earth believers.

Refraction is the bending of light. Have you cracked a dictionary lately? It might help you. 

Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:



Wikipedia:
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "


"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media."  Source




Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.

The important parts are bolded.

So, RE scientists actually say bendy light exists, which is clearly stated above... yet you claim it doesn't? I thought RE was supposed to be a pretty solid model? Do you disagree with other Round Earth points? If so, which ones?

[herewegoround]

Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

When something moves away from you the angle it subtends at your eye gets smaller, subsequently the image it forms on your retina gets smaller. That's why things in the distance look smaller to us. Now, explain to me exactly what it is that I don't understand about perspective.

Enough with the aetheric whirlpools. I got enough of that at the other forum. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. It's one of those "the evidence would indicate that the Earth is round however there are peculiar processes at work" arguments.

I was under the impression that this is a more serious forum, that was clearly a lie.

Explain why my argument is wrong. Explain why what I said about the video of the sun is wrong. That video alone makes a mockery of the whole flat Earth notion.

I am a proponent of the Aetheric Whirlpool theory. If you want answers not based on that theory, you'll have to ask someone else.

And it's still clear that you don't understand perspective or the phenomenon known as bendy light, all of which has been verified and tested in flat Earth labs. Ever put a pencil in a glass of water? The evidence is right in front of you, yet you simply refuse to accept it due to indoctrination. Once you get past your pre-existing bias, get back to us.

The Aetheric Whirlpool isn't a theory. For it to be a proper theory you would have provide a mathematical model. You have to specify some fundamental processes and describe them mathematically.

Flat Earth labs? And where, pray tell, are the flat Earth labs?

Water bends light because of refraction, it is a well understood idea in physics. If you want a really good explanation of this at the quantum level read Richard Feynman's book QED.

Right, so I am indoctrinated. The old fall back position of every flat Earth proponent when they can't argue their case. You are all so tediously predictable. Where is your evidence that I am not thinking for myself. I have put forward 8 arguments that I figured out entirely for myself. I have backed them up with evidence and I have shown that the flat Earth model doesn't even come close to predicting what we say. There is no way of making it work. You have failed to counter any of my arguments yet you are talking to me as if you put me in my place.

I have never in my life come across a more revoltingly dishonest community than that of the flat Earth believers.

Refraction is the bending of light. Have you cracked a dictionary lately? It might help you. 

Here's a few definitions of "Refraction" from multiple sources:



Wikipedia:
"Refraction can be seen when looking into a bowl of water. Air has a refractive index of about 1.0003, and water has a refractive index of about 1.3330. If a person looks at a straight object, such as a pencil or straw, which is placed at a slant, partially in the water, the object appears to bend at the water's surface. This is due to the bending of light rays as they move from the water to the air. "


"Refraction is the bending of a wave when it enters a medium where its speed is different. The refraction of light when it passes from a fast medium to a slow medium bends the light ray toward the normal to the boundary between the two media."  Source




Basically, if you want to keep denying that refraction is simply bendy light, then you might want to take it up with the authors of these definitions. Although, they are mostly edited by a collective of people on the internet who all seem to agree that refraction = the bending of light.

The important parts are bolded.

So, RE scientists actually say bendy light exists, which is clearly stated above... yet you claim it doesn't? I thought RE was supposed to be a pretty solid model? Do you disagree with other Round Earth points? If so, which ones?

I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?

[herewegoround]

This discussion is going down the classic route of flat Earth proponents derailing it with irrelevant comments.

1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.

Explain to me clearly why this is wrong.

[Ghost of V]

I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?

Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.

[herewegoround]

I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?

Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.

Where did I deny that light bends? Refraction bends light. I have a degree in Physics. I understand refraction.

How does that explain why my argument is wrong?

[herewegoround]

I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?

Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.

You have not said one thing of any substance what so ever in this discussion. All you have done is claim I am wrong, insult me and say things that don't seem to have any relevance.

I have made clear and well thought out arguments which you have not once even attempted to properly argue against.

Where is this going? Do you have anything worth listening to?

[Ghost of V]

I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?

Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.

Where did I deny that light bends? Refraction bends light. I have a degree in Physics. I understand refraction.

How does that explain why my argument is wrong?

Ok, then. So you believe that bendy light is a real phenomenon. Great!

Now, what's your issue with my explanation of the Sun not changing size? Are you having trouble reading my posts, or are you being obtuse on purpose? I very clearly explained every point to you in a simple way that a child could understand. If you are confused about something, please say so. Posturing and baseless claims (I have a physics degree) mean nothing to us. If you do not know what you're talking about (which is evident), then you're not going to be taken seriously. I am willing to have an adult conversation with you about bendy light and aether, but are you?

You have not said one thing of any substance what so ever in this discussion. All you have done is claim I am wrong, insult me and say things that don't seem to have any relevance.

So you are being obtuse on purpose. I see. Clearly you missed all the times I typed "aether is a dense medium", but I'll say it again.


Aether is a dense medium that bends light, causing a phenomenon similar to refraction which is called bendy light. This phenomenon explains why the Sun does not appear to have a significant change in size over the day.

I'm trying to explain this to you as simple as possible.

[herewegoround]

I said that refraction is the bending of light. What is going on in your head?

Good, so now that we've etasblished that bendy light does in fact exist as a legitimate phenomenon, what are you issues with my explanations? You do realize that aether is a medium in which light travels through, yes? It acts similar to water in that it bends the light. Bendy light is clearly elsewhere in nature, so I don't understand why you are denying this.

Where did I deny that light bends? Refraction bends light. I have a degree in Physics. I understand refraction.

How does that explain why my argument is wrong?

Ok, then. So you believe that bendy light is a real phenomenon. Great!

Now, what's your issue with my explanation of the Sun not changing size? Are you having trouble reading my posts, or are you being obtuse on purpose? I very clearly explained every point to you in a simple way that a child could understand. If you are confused about something, please say so. Posturing and baseless claims (I have a physics degree) mean nothing to us. If you do not know what you're talking about (which is evident), then you're not going to be taken seriously. I am willing to have an adult conversation with you about bendy light and aether, but are you?

You have not said one thing of any substance what so ever in this discussion. All you have done is claim I am wrong, insult me and say things that don't seem to have any relevance.

So you are being obtuse on purpose. I see. Clearly you missed all the times I typed "aether is a dense medium", but I'll say it again.


Aether is a dense medium that bends light, causing a phenomenon similar to refraction which is called bendy light. This phenomenon explains why the Sun does not appear to have a significant change in size over the day.

I'm trying to explain this to you as simple as possible.

Just saying that I don't know what i am talking about means nothing either.

Right, so light bends in something called the aether. We shall put aside for the moment that there is no scientific evidence for such a thing.

How does that manage to make the sun look the same apparent size at any given location on Earth and over the course of a day at any given location?

Drop the obnoxious patronising tone by the way, you are vastly over estimating your own intelligence. Another common trait with flat Earth believers.

[jroa]

I am still waiting for some proof that the size of the sun does not change throughout the day.  Everything I find either says it does, or it does not because of magical illusions.  Which one is it? 

[herewegoround]

I am still waiting for some proof that the size of the sun does not change throughout the day.  Everything I find either says it does, or it does not because of magical illusions.  Which one is it?

I provided you with links, a quote by a professional astronomer, two videos which clearly show the sun not changing its size.

What the fuck is going on in your head? Seriously, are you trolling?

I also analysed the video and showed that if we make the perfectly reasonable assumption that things look smaller when they move further away, the video destroys flat Earth theory.

Where does it say that the sun's angular size changes significantly over the course of a day?

[jroa]

I don't believe in astrology, and I find it hard to imagine that black surfers even exist. 

[herewegoround]

I don't believe in astrology, and I find it hard to imagine that black surfers even exist.

I am starting to wonder why the Doctors who look after are letting you loose on the internet. I can only assume they are hoping it will help you work through your delusions.

[herewegoround]

I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.

Well, it has about as much evidence as aetheric whirlpools.

This is a fucking joke.

[Ghost of V]

I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Also, please refrain from insulting us in the upper fora. I'm warning you now before one of the mods has to step in.

[Rushy]

I've got a better theory, the flying spaghetti monster blows magic dust in everyone's eyes and this causes them to see the sun as always being the same size.

Well, it has about as much evidence as aetheric whirlpools.

This is a fucking joke.

I just popped in this thread to see what was going on. I'm once again met with the unwashed masses of round earthies proposing even more fascinating responses. With this degree of content generating ability, perhaps our Angry Ranting or Complete Nonsense forums would be more to your liking.