3801

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 13, 2018, 08:42:42 AM »

It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.

But horizon dip has been empirically tested by Bobby - other experiments have been posted which show the same result.
If Tom rejects them he's free to repeat them himself. The fact he repeatedly refuses to or makes excuses tells me that he's not serious about finding truth and is content to worship at the alter of Rowbotham.

RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over.

Not if they actually tally with observations. I reject Tom's model of perspective and horizon dip because it is demonstrably wrong.
A sun thousands of miles above the earth cannot appear to set by "perspective".
I've said several times that the EA theory does work a lot better in this regard so I haven't rejected it out of hand.

BUT, I don't know of any force that would make light bend upwards so I've asked what evidence there is for that effect even existing. The Wiki page about it is pretty sketchy, there's an equation with no real explanation how it was derived. It contains the "Bishop constant", which is ironic if he rejects EA. I'm just not clear what evidence there is that this is a real effect.
You might claim that sunset IS that evidence but it feels like a fudge to explain RE observations on a flat earth.

3802

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 13, 2018, 07:52:48 AM »

Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.

Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".

Hmm. This is a strange thing to say. It's like rejecting the concept of truth.
I mean...you and Tom might disagree about whether the horizon rises to eye level but this is something you can test.
You both claim to value the importance of empirical evidence so, if you haven't, why not just do an experiment?
Bobby already has and has definitively shown that the horizon does not rise to eye level.
Once that has been established then it becomes "truth", an axiom on which you can build, no?

The horizon when you're at altitude is either below, at or above eye level. There are no other possibilities.
Sometimes you can't see the horizon but that's nit-picking, on a clear day you can do a measurement to determine which of the above 3 is the case.
You can do the measurement from different altitudes and look at whether the horizon's position changes.
You can repeat this experiment on different (clear) days to determine whether the results change.
Over time you build up a model of horizon height vs altitude and others can do their own experiments to verify that model and build confidence in it.
That model then becomes "the truth" until someone finds some problem with the model.

The truth about this cannot be relative it's an objective, measurable thing.

3803

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 07:27:32 AM »

Wild Heretic, the man who gave us

"Is the moon an optical illusion"

http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/

And claims that "The Sun is an artificial sulfur lamp which has a light side and a dark side. At the moment I theorize that the dark side could be the moon"

http://www.wildheretic.com/how-is-there-night-and-day/



Tom. Come on. You can find "evidence" to back up any crazy assertion out there on the internet somewhere. Mad people used to shout on street corners, now they write blogs or post on YouTube.

3804

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 13, 2018, 07:14:06 AM »

Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.

It is, but when you have Wiki pages like this...

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Pete, can you not see how that would confuse a stupid person? There's no indication that this is an idea that only some FE proponents believe.
This is like trying to guess the number you're thinking of and being allowed to ask questions like "is it odd" or "is it less than 100" but getting confusing responses and then realising you're all thinking of different numbers.

It's increasingly clear that there is no coherent FE theory, model or society. It's just a bunch of people who all believe that the earth is flat (or maybe don't, really) and all come to their own different ways of explaining away the fact that observations demonstrate a globe.

All that said, EA works fairly well to explain the sun's movement, it makes sense in a way that "perspective" doesn't, at all.

3805

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 05:23:05 PM »

It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.

That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.

That’s a bit of a silly comparison.
Nothing is making the light shoot anywhere in the round earth model. The light goes in straight lines and the earth is curved so over distance yes, a light which starts parallel ground will “rise”, but it’s not the light that is rising, it’s the ground that is curving away. Hence the result in the boat and laser experiment. But this is all well understood and that experiment is verification of it.
There is no law of physics that says that ALL light is deflected upwards by some force. This is just a FE attempt to fudge things to explain observations. And it’s fair enough to make a hypothesis which explains observations but you have to follow that up with experiments. What experiments have been done which show this is a real effect?

3806

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 03:10:43 PM »

It is described as a "proposal" in the Wiki. The equation is given with no real explanation as to how it was derived, how it has been tested and what evidence exists for this effect even existing.
As an explanation for sunset it kinda works, the sun is really 3,000 miles above the earth but its light is bent so we see it coming at us horizontally and eventually shoots over our heads so it's dark. Works quite well to explain clouds lit from below and noctilucent clouds too.

Only problem is I've seen no evidence presented that it actually exists as an effect.

3807

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 02:45:44 PM »

Pete and the Wiki are consistently and annoyingly vague about what the point of this theory is

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

There seems to be no empirical evidence that this effect even exists.

If it's to explain sunset then it works a whole lot better than perspective. If it isn't then what evidence do you have for it and what phenomena does it explain?

3808

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 12, 2018, 02:20:08 PM »

It looks like they're swinging with "Its not over yet" and "Trump is BFF with Hitler"

Not such an unreasonable stance at this stage, Kim Jong Un is crackers, no guarantee he'll follow through.
Have to say though, I've spent the last year facepalming at pretty much everything Trump has done but if he's puled this off then it will be massively impressive.

3809

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 12, 2018, 12:51:50 PM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44450739

Maybe Trump is a genius after all. If so he hides it well, but if he's got the concessions it seems he has then credit where it's due, it's pretty impressive.

3810

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: June 12, 2018, 12:41:00 PM »

Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".

You say that.
You get quite a lot of lunatics saying "the horizon looks flat and therefore the earth must be flat"...

3811

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 10:19:00 AM »

Right. So is your objection to the diagram the amount of bending?
So the light does bend and the sun's apparent position isn't its real position, but it isn't as pronounced as in that diagram, yes?
Maybe when you have time you can show a diagram explaining the reality in your model.

3812

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 10:01:42 AM »

My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.

But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?

If the light is bent such that it comes at me in an upward direction then I see it below me.
Consider the sun reflected in a puddle of water. The sun looks like it's below me, in the puddle.
Obviously I know in real life it isn't below me but because the reflected light comes from that direction that is where it appears.

3813

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 09:56:33 AM »

That is how you work out where things are.

Your point?

My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.

3814

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 09:40:30 AM »

What? But how can it? The light has bent and because of that it hits your eye at a different angle and hits the retina in a different place.
That is how you work out where things are.
I thought this was an explanation for sunset and actually works quite well, if the sun is above the flat earth but the light is bent enough that it is coming at your horizontally then you'll see the sun at the horizon.

3815

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 09:23:54 AM »

Are you able to fix the diagram? I'm not clear what you think is wrong with it.

3816

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 09:12:27 AM »

I'm confused by that post, the two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
Obviously the scale is exaggerated but the diagram is basically correct isn't it? The photon may bend but the angle it hits your eye determines where it hits your retina and you see the object as though was coming from that direction, no? That's why you can see round corners with mirrors, it looks like the object is straight in front of you when in fact it is round the corner. Your eye can't tell the path the light has travelled to get to you.

3817

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 12, 2018, 08:25:54 AM »

Is this "law" about light bending upwards in some way related to UA?
Because "up" only has meaning relative to your own orientation, on a globe earth "up" in Australia is opposite to "up" in the UK.
Is there any actual evidence for this effect, has it been shown experimentally?
Or is this just rationalisation to make things like sunset work on a flat earth?
(If so then I have to admit it's a much better explanation than "perspective")

3818

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Jesus preach that earth was a globe and was created in billions of years?

« on: June 11, 2018, 08:33:02 PM »

It does, doesn't it? Although I believe "side" is a better interpretation than rib.
To be honest, I don't really understand early Genesis. But I believe the important truths are the fact that I am a creation, who I was created by and what I was created for, and my rebellion and need for salvation. These are the deeper truths of Genesis, I don't think it is to be read like a scientific textbook.

You are correct in that it is important to know that you were created by God and that all things were created by God.  But believing in science's creation story leads to atheism or doubt or the changing of God's Scriptures to conform to what men say, but it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.  However, believing in God's creation story only leads to believing in God alone and that God is the Creator of all things.

I actually agree that many people believe that science has proved religion wrong but I don't see it as a "science creation story" or a "God's creation story" and you have to pick one. Science doesn't have a creation story, it has nothing to say about whether we ARE a creation. The Bible has a creation story and that tells us that we ARE a creation, it tells us who created us and what He created us for.
Science is just trying to work out the mechanics of how that happened and the timescale, the current scientific thinking leads me to believe that the earth is billions of years old and the days of Genesis are not literal, but it has nothing to say about whether I have a purpose, that is not in the scope of science.
Religion and science are simply asking different questions. Broadly speaking science asks "How?" and religion asks "Why?"

3819

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Jesus preach that earth was a globe and was created in billions of years?

« on: June 11, 2018, 02:40:10 PM »

It does, doesn't it? Although I believe "side" is a better interpretation than rib.
To be honest, I don't really understand early Genesis. But I believe the important truths are the fact that I am a creation, who I was created by and what I was created for, and my rebellion and need for salvation. These are the deeper truths of Genesis, I don't think it is to be read like a scientific textbook.

3820

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Jesus preach that earth was a globe and was created in billions of years?

« on: June 11, 2018, 01:29:12 PM »

Jesus knows what really happened, He was there. It was actually made through him

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1:1-3

But He didn't come to give people a science lesson and He was talking to a people nowhere near as advanced as we are now scientifically, He would have used language they understood.

As for being made from dust, the current scientific thinking is that elements are forged in stars and supernova then spew them across the universe, so if that's right we are actually made of stardust.