God must have special place for those that mock his words so badly as flat earthers.
Repent and leave this devils joke..... if its not too late.
You have been proven times and times again that its just a joke. Its illogical.
Maybe it was funny... yeah... but snap out of it.
Topic: Flat Earth - page 638. (Read 1095196 times)
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Not sure if trolling, but in any case I used ms paint to show you. It's to do with angles.
The only time the sunlight can't directly hit the moon is during a lunar eclipse, where the Earth is directly between the Sun and moon. You might think the moon would disappear fully and turn black, but there is a certain amount of light that refracts through the Earth's atmosphere, causing a shift in light frequency and making the moon appear red, rather than totally black (and invisible).
Why didn't you put the moon exactly in the back of the earth in your drawing? in your draw, there are still light coming from the sun, if you put the moon little down, there is no way it can be illuminated..
Or will you believe the brainwash theory saying the moon is always in that possition you put it?
I didn't put the moon directly in line with the sun and Earth, because as I explained that would constitute a lunar eclipse. We are talking about seeing the moon not being in line with the sun and Earth, and as my super sophisticated diagram shows, the sun's light reflects off the moon, and is visible from the Earth!
I addressed what would happen if the moon was directly in line with the Earth - Lunar eclipse, which I explained in my previous post.
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Not sure if trolling, but in any case I used ms paint to show you. It's to do with angles.
The only time the sunlight can't directly hit the moon is during a lunar eclipse, where the Earth is directly between the Sun and moon. You might think the moon would disappear fully and turn black, but there is a certain amount of light that refracts through the Earth's atmosphere, causing a shift in light frequency and making the moon appear red, rather than totally black (and invisible).
This "artwork" is a complete insult to a God given common sense. It seems that you are a joker or a totally deluded globe-head.
Don't fall for that ball earth indoctrination. For anyone interested below is a link with complete debunk of a "lunar eclipse debunks flat earth". it is on the contrary - a lunar eclipse debunks ball earth, end of debate.
With two practical observations - research: https://youtu.be/sAay4rF30g8?t=15m2s
The American Indians always asked if the Earth is a ball, then how come those on the bottom half of the Earth don't fall off?
By the way. The indians always had white people as stupid. Ask any native american if all the bullshit they sell for many are real? They fuck with you and laugh from you thinking that such a person like you will buy any crap sold to them.
Those rain dance stories and shit are all fake and you are stupid if you believe it. Just look at south america how indians love their own culture. They dont. They love our culture just like north american did. The smart one knew how to make money on some fools.
Just like your flat earth idols. They have you for a fools because they know you will buy any crap they sell to you as long as you feel yourself important.
And you say saucer shaped on pillars omg. Yeah native americans were right. Yankes are fucking dumb.
And those pillars are on?............ eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Maybe its a stool on a stool on a stool on a stool to a n times 666 huh? You buying this? Ok ill pm you my bitcoin adress
Sorry but God clearly didnt made you on his image. Do you imagine God babbling meaningless stuff and you believing him? Shitbat crazy people. If i would be God I would die from laughing and tears.
Quote
Insert Quote
Quote from: Chikako on Today at 05:53:22 PM
...having one healthy individual will make him to be the only good person there, even if he is only 1.
Are you suggesting that it's only the Flat Earthers that are healthy individuals, and anyone ascribing to the widely accepted scientific model of physics/existence is mentally ill ?
Quote from: Chikako on Today at 05:53:22 PM
...having one healthy individual will make him to be the only good person there, even if he is only 1.
Are you suggesting that it's only the Flat Earthers that are healthy individuals, and anyone ascribing to the widely accepted scientific model of physics/existence is mentally ill ?
We will have to disapoint him sadly :-(
Our entire existence is a simulation. So who cares if the earth is round or flat. WERE A FREAKING SIMULATION!!1!1!!
Anyone know the code for motherlode? The old code, klapaucius doesn't work anymore. I need some funds so I can build an extension on my house and start a family.
Anyone know the code for motherlode? The old code, klapaucius doesn't work anymore. I need some funds so I can build an extension on my house and start a family.
Quote from: BiVi link=topic=1009045.msg17496151#msg17496151 0date=1484333660
I'm not a religious person, but from what I recall as a child reading the bible, the Earth has 4 corners or 4 Pillars of the Earth. It even mentions this in the book of revelations. A ball doesn't have any corners! Therefore the Earth cannot be a ball.
The American Indians always asked if the Earth is a ball, then how come those on the bottom half of the Earth don't fall off?
The bible also mentions the "round of the Earth" but nowhere does it mention that Earth is a ball. It can easily be saucer shaped on pillars.
The American Indians always asked if the Earth is a ball, then how come those on the bottom half of the Earth don't fall off?
The bible also mentions the "round of the Earth" but nowhere does it mention that Earth is a ball. It can easily be saucer shaped on pillars.
Its the doublepiramid in the palace of the god. Magnet in the middle that makes electrical unverse that Tesla was talking possible.
Ill be called a crazy person again. Im just making a logic from a written word. Dont kill the messenger guys.
4 pilars are the corners of that magnet and around them the heaven rotate.
Do I know if its like that? No im just making it logical. Kind of.
I'm not a religious person, but from what I recall as a child reading the bible, the Earth has 4 corners or 4 Pillars of the Earth. It even mentions this in the book of revelations. A ball doesn't have any corners! Therefore the Earth cannot be a ball.
The American Indians always asked if the Earth is a ball, then how come those on the bottom half of the Earth don't fall off?
The bible also mentions the "round of the Earth" but nowhere does it mention that Earth is a ball. It can easily be saucer shaped on pillars.
The American Indians always asked if the Earth is a ball, then how come those on the bottom half of the Earth don't fall off?
The bible also mentions the "round of the Earth" but nowhere does it mention that Earth is a ball. It can easily be saucer shaped on pillars.
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Right! There is no way to debunk a religion in the minds of those who believe it. The only way that comes close is similar to brainwashing.
It's like this. The flat Earth idea of perspective doesn't match real life. It is against common sense, and doesn't fit the way things work, things that people use everyday. So, here is what the flat Earther does in his mind.
He subconsciously splits his mind into two parts. The first part uses perspective just like any normal person. The second part goes off and listens to and watches flat Earth perspective videos. It becomes brainwashed into believing flat Earth perspective makes sense, and is the way things work. The flat Earther has formed a religion for himself in this second part.
Now, this wouldn't be so bad. What makes it really goofy is that then the flat Earther gives the second part the control of his formal beliefs, while he lets the first part remain active in his standard life-operation understandings. We have a two-part person in the flat Earther. And the only part you normally hear is the part that is controlled by the flat Earth religion, the second part.
It isn't that the other part is gone. He needs it to live life, and walk among other people. It's just that the second part has taken over his belief system.
Flat Earth people are "special" people who have very strong mentalities. It's okay to leave them in their delusions. Just watch out for yourself when you are in their presence, and walk away when they start getting a little dangerous. The forum, here, is a good buffer... one that keeps them from actually hurting normal people.
You are wrong, in a world full of people mentally ill (except those ones who kept these people in that state (elites) ), having one healthy individual will make him to be the only good person there, even if he is only 1.
The number of people believing something doesn't affect the result
.Not because of bringing 1 trillion people from another dimension and saying "Bitcoin doesn't need internet!!" it won't use it
, even if there is only 1 people here that knows Bitcoin indeed needs internet, that will be the only truth.And in a world full of crazies , if someone wakes up you are right, first he needs to make a second place for the new reality, and then finally absorb it. The rest of the individuals will be left in the fantasy world of Platoon Cave if they don't do the same.
Truth is absolute, not relative!
That's how your evolution works! don't be mad!.
I agree with you with all my heart.
Yes.... but i have to add one small thingy. Truth requires.........LOGIC!
If its illogical.... sorry... its not true.
Just because someone that think he is a cat. Doesnt mean that when you think you are a dog its ok.
And yes a history of humanity is a history of a total nuts calling balanced people insane. And yeah most of the people on our earth are a semicrazy paranoidical neurotics at best.
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Right! There is no way to debunk a religion in the minds of those who believe it. The only way that comes close is similar to brainwashing.
It's like this. The flat Earth idea of perspective doesn't match real life. It is against common sense, and doesn't fit the way things work, things that people use everyday. So, here is what the flat Earther does in his mind.
He subconsciously splits his mind into two parts. The first part uses perspective just like any normal person. The second part goes off and listens to and watches flat Earth perspective videos. It becomes brainwashed into believing flat Earth perspective makes sense, and is the way things work. The flat Earther has formed a religion for himself in this second part.
Now, this wouldn't be so bad. What makes it really goofy is that then the flat Earther gives the second part the control of his formal beliefs, while he lets the first part remain active in his standard life-operation understandings. We have a two-part person in the flat Earther. And the only part you normally hear is the part that is controlled by the flat Earth religion, the second part.
It isn't that the other part is gone. He needs it to live life, and walk among other people. It's just that the second part has taken over his belief system.
Flat Earth people are "special" people who have very strong mentalities. It's okay to leave them in their delusions. Just watch out for yourself when you are in their presence, and walk away when they start getting a little dangerous. The forum, here, is a good buffer... one that keeps them from actually hurting normal people.
You are wrong, in a world full of people mentally ill (except those ones who kept these people in that state (elites) ), having one healthy individual will make him to be the only good person there, even if he is only 1.
The number of people believing something doesn't affect the result
.Not because of bringing 1 trillion people from another dimension and saying "Bitcoin doesn't need internet!!" it won't use it
, even if there is only 1 people here that knows Bitcoin indeed needs internet, that will be the only truth.And in a world full of crazies , if someone wakes up you are right, first he needs to make a second place for the new reality, and then finally absorb it. The rest of the individuals will be left in the fantasy world of Platoon Cave if they don't do the same.
Truth is absolute, not relative!
That's how your evolution works! don't be mad!.
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Not sure if trolling, but in any case I used ms paint to show you. It's to do with angles.
The only time the sunlight can't directly hit the moon is during a lunar eclipse, where the Earth is directly between the Sun and moon. You might think the moon would disappear fully and turn black, but there is a certain amount of light that refracts through the Earth's atmosphere, causing a shift in light frequency and making the moon appear red, rather than totally black (and invisible).
Why didn't you put the moon exactly in the back of the earth in your drawing? in your draw, there are still light coming from the sun, if you put the moon little down, there is no way it can be illuminated..
Or will you believe the brainwash theory saying the moon is always in that possition you put it?
What an amazing time we live in - People forming their belief structure from fringe YouTube videos.
No. Its amazing time that people question the authority. Still its only occasionaly. It puts a pressure on authorities to care.
Real unbiased scientists should at least ponder upon the idea - what if light actualy bends.
"What is Gravitational Lensing, Alex ?"
Einstein theory was "invented" to hide light bending by aether. It was scientificly proven by the Lorentz . They needed to reinterpet the data.
Do you know thats its "confirming" the newtonian model by adding a very rare exception. Such a logical construct, but im not sure you can understand that. Prove me Im wrong and you are more inteligent than I think you are.
Here is a counter theory to official. And yes thats how science works by disproving one argument by proposing a counter argument. Contrary to some wanabe "scientists" try to claim here on this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwSXwV2jG4
If you are so critical as you suppose you are. Why do you think they have picked the Einstein interpretation and dumped the rest? Theory of relativity is still mainly a hyphotesis. Some experiments are wrongly done. If you want I can wrote what experiments that "prove" theory of relativity need to be redone.
It was the Tesla himself that had said that without the aether the world around us is unexplainable. You can call everything about the Tesla but not being unscientific.
But if some guy propose a redone of experiments he is faced with a lack of funds and a wall of authorities. Its a very unscientific aspect of science we need to face to make world more innovative and in touch with the truth. If they wont do that there will be a turmoil of different more intouch thoeries on the internet about the universe because scientists sux at their job for making science more democratic.
By doing bad job at science, you create a frankensteins like flat earth. If there are some actual scientist. Do you your fucking job and experiments right so that people would not have any chance to call you losers.
light is really a wave and can only approximately be thought of as consisting of independently-propagating rays. This happens when the wavelength of the light is much smaller than the distances it is propagating over, which is usually the case for light (whose wavelength in the visible range is 0.4 to 0.7μm) but is not necessarily the case e.g. for radio waves and when nanoparticles are involved.
In this short-wavelength limit, wave propagation gives way to ray propagation (which is a special, approximate case of the former), and specifically to Fermat's principle for the mathematical description of light. This principle states that light rays starting at A and ending up at B will follow the path that minimizes the travel time
S=∫BAn(s)ds,
where n(s)n(s) is the (possibly spatially dependant) refraction index along the path.
For a homogeneous medium, this does indeed give straight lines for propagation. For a planar interface between two different media it gives Snell's law for refraction and it also describes reflection. (However, because it does not account for the actual nature of light as an oscillating electric field, this description cannot predict transmission or reflection coefficients.
However, if the medium is not homogeneous, then light will not travel on a straight line, and for complicated inhomogeneities the path can be correspondingly difficult to calculate. For an example, see the formation of mirages or more generally atmospheric refraction. Conversely, if one has a path one wishes a given light ray to take, then it is possible to engineer a refractive index spatial dependence that will make light bend that way. (Of course, whether such a dependence is physically reasonable is another matter; if the path bends too sharply then it may not be possible to find materials with the correspondingly large index and index gradients necessary.)
Yes. I understood your model. But for example an experiment that proves the theory of relativity might as well prove that light bends in our atmosphere in the direction oposing to the official light refraction.
Scientists have made a "succesful" experiment with time change according to the atomic clock with the higher altitude from earth. The problem with that experiment is with the atomic clock. It uses a photons to determine the time but it uses calculation according to the light going at the same speed. If light os bending its slows as with the layman terms, thats how it looks on the clock. It might mean two things. One more sensical is that light bends, or the other that time travel is possible. I would say the latter is weird. And they call me crazy. Sheesh.
That experiment indirectly prove different thing than einsteinian would like. It proves that on different altitutude from earth, as it was done in the earth atmosphere behave differently.
I dont know why scientists completly ignore the counter hyphotesis? Just because they had made a new tower of babel from science and the data does not fit their believes? I am not stating it as fact. Im just puzzled.
Yes ive heard about the refraction, but mathematicly the refraction is too small in ball earth model to see a south pole star from a tropic cancer and north pole star from the tropic capricon and we clearly see them from there. Not too mention the refraction does not answer why does the clouds are lit from below when they should have bin lit from above during the sunset. Refraction states that light bends according to earth curvature. Btw how convenient no? Btw the flatearthers theory of clouds being higher then sun is funny as hell. Why are the sun higher just before the sunset? Weird stuff.
They need to make one statements as true. Either there is a refraction or there is not. And what direction? I say its from earth surface upward, but then, the only model for that to work is a concave earth. It fits exactly why we see weird phenomens on the sky and earth.
And sorry im sorry that dont operate equations but just experiments and common sense. I dont have physics degree, but science should be for insighted amateurs as well. I have master degree but not in astrophysics. You cant have every degree and every knowledge. Its impossible novadays.
P.s. sorry I dont remember if it was half the distance from equator to tropics, but it would still mean a huge refraction is needed.
I personally don't believe that time exists outside of being a human construct to measure relativity, so I feel that the atomic clock experiments don't actually prove anything other than the clocks themselves are being acted on by a force that affects their physical ability to keep track of time. Bit I digress as this is not the topic of discussion in this thread.
I think you're actually confusing the forces in affect here. You mention refraction numerous times but when discussing gravitational lensing, as mentioned by both BobLawblaw and CC-Resurgam, refraction is not the force in play; reflection, refraction and gravitational lensing are three different phenomenon all affecting how the light travels when both in the Earth's atmosphere and its gravitational field.
I dont think time exists either but atomic clocks are working based on the speed of light which ofcourse is proven to be able to slow down. All you have to do is bend it.
And that is completly on the subject. And screw the namings. I present you experiments and observations and logic behind them. How you call it its up to you.
Yes I know they are different but as far as I know the refraction is the most comonly used to patch the illogicality of the optics.
What is a little less on the subject but still interesting as well:
There is a guy inmendham on the internet. He thinks that a matter is just an enclosed light that cant get out the atoms.
On the irony the guy does not believe in god. He is a firm atheist. I was as well until ive found by the reasenoning i was lied or duped into thinking that some crapy science have merits.
Quote
Insert Quote
Quote from: notbatman on Today at 02:02:19 PM
^ yes we live in an enclosed system but for dog's sake man the Earth's surface is as flat as a pancake.
Its no use he has been brainwashed by that nut job lord christmas bloke on you tube.!!
Quote from: notbatman on Today at 02:02:19 PM
^ yes we live in an enclosed system but for dog's sake man the Earth's surface is as flat as a pancake.
Its no use he has been brainwashed by that nut job lord christmas bloke on you tube.!!
Nope. Wrong. I knew it earlier before ive met jsc channel. He has some good graphics as he is a talented plastician. Thats all.
Real unbiased scientists should at least ponder upon the idea - what if light actualy bends.
"What is Gravitational Lensing, Alex ?"
Einstein theory was "invented" to hide light bending by aether. It was scientificly proven by the Lorentz . They needed to reinterpet the data.
Do you know thats its "confirming" the newtonian model by adding a very rare exception. Such a logical construct, but im not sure you can understand that. Prove me Im wrong and you are more inteligent than I think you are.
Here is a counter theory to official. And yes thats how science works by disproving one argument by proposing a counter argument. Contrary to some wanabe "scientists" try to claim here on this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwSXwV2jG4
If you are so critical as you suppose you are. Why do you think they have picked the Einstein interpretation and dumped the rest? Theory of relativity is still mainly a hyphotesis. Some experiments are wrongly done. If you want I can wrote what experiments that "prove" theory of relativity need to be redone.
It was the Tesla himself that had said that without the aether the world around us is unexplainable. You can call everything about the Tesla but not being unscientific.
But if some guy propose a redone of experiments he is faced with a lack of funds and a wall of authorities. Its a very unscientific aspect of science we need to face to make world more innovative and in touch with the truth. If they wont do that there will be a turmoil of different more intouch thoeries on the internet about the universe because scientists sux at their job for making science more democratic.
By doing bad job at science, you create a frankensteins like flat earth. If there are some actual scientist. Do you your fucking job and experiments right so that people would not have any chance to call you losers.
light is really a wave and can only approximately be thought of as consisting of independently-propagating rays. This happens when the wavelength of the light is much smaller than the distances it is propagating over, which is usually the case for light (whose wavelength in the visible range is 0.4 to 0.7μm) but is not necessarily the case e.g. for radio waves and when nanoparticles are involved.
In this short-wavelength limit, wave propagation gives way to ray propagation (which is a special, approximate case of the former), and specifically to Fermat's principle for the mathematical description of light. This principle states that light rays starting at A and ending up at B will follow the path that minimizes the travel time
S=∫BAn(s)ds,
where n(s)n(s) is the (possibly spatially dependant) refraction index along the path.
For a homogeneous medium, this does indeed give straight lines for propagation. For a planar interface between two different media it gives Snell's law for refraction and it also describes reflection. (However, because it does not account for the actual nature of light as an oscillating electric field, this description cannot predict transmission or reflection coefficients.
However, if the medium is not homogeneous, then light will not travel on a straight line, and for complicated inhomogeneities the path can be correspondingly difficult to calculate. For an example, see the formation of mirages or more generally atmospheric refraction. Conversely, if one has a path one wishes a given light ray to take, then it is possible to engineer a refractive index spatial dependence that will make light bend that way. (Of course, whether such a dependence is physically reasonable is another matter; if the path bends too sharply then it may not be possible to find materials with the correspondingly large index and index gradients necessary.)
Yes. I understood your model. But for example an experiment that proves the theory of relativity might as well prove that light bends in our atmosphere in the direction oposing to the official light refraction.
Scientists have made a "succesful" experiment with time change according to the atomic clock with the higher altitude from earth. The problem with that experiment is with the atomic clock. It uses a photons to determine the time but it uses calculation according to the light going at the same speed. If light os bending its slows as with the layman terms, thats how it looks on the clock. It might mean two things. One more sensical is that light bends, or the other that time travel is possible. I would say the latter is weird. And they call me crazy. Sheesh.
That experiment indirectly prove different thing than einsteinian would like. It proves that on different altitutude from earth, as it was done in the earth atmosphere behave differently.
I dont know why scientists completly ignore the counter hyphotesis? Just because they had made a new tower of babel from science and the data does not fit their believes? I am not stating it as fact. Im just puzzled.
Yes ive heard about the refraction, but mathematicly the refraction is too small in ball earth model to see a south pole star from a tropic cancer and north pole star from the tropic capricon and we clearly see them from there. Not too mention the refraction does not answer why does the clouds are lit from below when they should have bin lit from above during the sunset. Refraction states that light bends according to earth curvature. Btw how convenient no? Btw the flatearthers theory of clouds being higher then sun is funny as hell. Why are the sun higher just before the sunset? Weird stuff.
They need to make one statements as true. Either there is a refraction or there is not. And what direction? I say its from earth surface upward, but then, the only model for that to work is a concave earth. It fits exactly why we see weird phenomens on the sky and earth.
And sorry im sorry that dont operate equations but just experiments and common sense. I dont have physics degree, but science should be for insighted amateurs as well. I have master degree but not in astrophysics. You cant have every degree and every knowledge. Its impossible novadays.
P.s. sorry I dont remember if it was half the distance from equator to tropics, but it would still mean a huge refraction is needed.
I personally don't believe that time exists outside of being a human construct to measure relativity, so I feel that the atomic clock experiments don't actually prove anything other than the clocks themselves are being acted on by a force that affects their physical ability to keep track of time. Bit I digress as this is not the topic of discussion in this thread.
I think you're actually confusing the forces in affect here. You mention refraction numerous times but when discussing gravitational lensing, as mentioned by both BobLawblaw and CC-Resurgam, refraction is not the force in play; reflection, refraction and gravitational lensing are three different phenomenon all affecting how the light travels when both in the Earth's atmosphere and its gravitational field.
^ yes we live in an enclosed system but for dog's sake man the Earth's surface is as flat as a pancake.
Its no use he has been brainwashed by that nut job lord christmas bloke on you tube.!!
^ Yes we live in an enclosed system but for dog's sake man the Earth's surface is as flat as a pancake.
Real unbiased scientists should at least ponder upon the idea - what if light actualy bends.
"What is Gravitational Lensing, Alex ?"
Einstein theory was "invented" to hide light bending by aether. It was scientificly proven by the Lorentz . They needed to reinterpet the data.
Do you know thats its "confirming" the newtonian model by adding a very rare exception. Such a logical construct, but im not sure you can understand that. Prove me Im wrong and you are more inteligent than I think you are.
Here is a counter theory to official. And yes thats how science works by disproving one argument by proposing a counter argument. Contrary to some wanabe "scientists" try to claim here on this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwSXwV2jG4
If you are so critical as you suppose you are. Why do you think they have picked the Einstein interpretation and dumped the rest? Theory of relativity is still mainly a hyphotesis. Some experiments are wrongly done. If you want I can wrote what experiments that "prove" theory of relativity need to be redone.
It was the Tesla himself that had said that without the aether the world around us is unexplainable. You can call everything about the Tesla but not being unscientific.
But if some guy propose a redone of experiments he is faced with a lack of funds and a wall of authorities. Its a very unscientific aspect of science we need to face to make world more innovative and in touch with the truth. If they wont do that there will be a turmoil of different more intouch thoeries on the internet about the universe because scientists sux at their job for making science more democratic.
By doing bad job at science, you create a frankensteins like flat earth. If there are some actual scientist. Do you your fucking job and experiments right so that people would not have any chance to call you losers.
light is really a wave and can only approximately be thought of as consisting of independently-propagating rays. This happens when the wavelength of the light is much smaller than the distances it is propagating over, which is usually the case for light (whose wavelength in the visible range is 0.4 to 0.7μm) but is not necessarily the case e.g. for radio waves and when nanoparticles are involved.
In this short-wavelength limit, wave propagation gives way to ray propagation (which is a special, approximate case of the former), and specifically to Fermat's principle for the mathematical description of light. This principle states that light rays starting at A and ending up at B will follow the path that minimizes the travel time
S=∫BAn(s)ds,
where n(s)n(s) is the (possibly spatially dependant) refraction index along the path.
For a homogeneous medium, this does indeed give straight lines for propagation. For a planar interface between two different media it gives Snell's law for refraction and it also describes reflection. (However, because it does not account for the actual nature of light as an oscillating electric field, this description cannot predict transmission or reflection coefficients.
However, if the medium is not homogeneous, then light will not travel on a straight line, and for complicated inhomogeneities the path can be correspondingly difficult to calculate. For an example, see the formation of mirages or more generally atmospheric refraction. Conversely, if one has a path one wishes a given light ray to take, then it is possible to engineer a refractive index spatial dependence that will make light bend that way. (Of course, whether such a dependence is physically reasonable is another matter; if the path bends too sharply then it may not be possible to find materials with the correspondingly large index and index gradients necessary.)
Yes. I understood your model. But for example an experiment that proves the theory of relativity might as well prove that light bends in our atmosphere in the direction oposing to the official light refraction.
Scientists have made a "succesful" experiment with time change according to the atomic clock with the higher altitude from earth. The problem with that experiment is with the atomic clock. It uses a photons to determine the time but it uses calculation according to the light going at the same speed. If light os bending its slows as with the layman terms, thats how it looks on the clock. It might mean two things. One more sensical is that light bends, or the other that time travel is possible. I would say the latter is weird. And they call me crazy. Sheesh.
That experiment indirectly prove different thing than einsteinian would like. It proves that on different altitutude from earth, as it was done in the earth atmosphere behave differently.
I dont know why scientists completly ignore the counter hyphotesis? Just because they had made a new tower of babel from science and the data does not fit their believes? I am not stating it as fact. Im just puzzled.
Yes ive heard about the refraction, but mathematicly the refraction is too small in ball earth model to see a south pole star from a tropic cancer and north pole star from the tropic capricon and we clearly see them from there. Not too mention the refraction does not answer why does the clouds are lit from below when they should have bin lit from above during the sunset. Refraction states that light bends according to earth curvature. Btw how convenient no? Btw the flatearthers theory of clouds being higher then sun is funny as hell. Why are the sun higher just before the sunset? Weird stuff.
They need to make one statements as true. Either there is a refraction or there is not. And what direction? I say its from earth surface upward, but then, the only model for that to work is a concave earth. It fits exactly why we see weird phenomens on the sky and earth.
And sorry im sorry that dont operate equations but just experiments and common sense. I dont have physics degree, but science should be for insighted amateurs as well. I have master degree but not in astrophysics. You cant have every degree and every knowledge. Its impossible novadays.
P.s. sorry I dont remember if it was half the distance from equator to tropics, but it would still mean a huge refraction is needed.
Ride the bicycle around the world.
With a spirit level nailed to your hat
Ride the bicycle around the world.
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Right! There is no way to debunk a religion in the minds of those who believe it. The only way that comes close is similar to brainwashing.
It's like this. The flat Earth idea of perspective doesn't match real life. It is against common sense, and doesn't fit the way things work, things that people use everyday. So, here is what the flat Earther does in his mind.
He subconsciously splits his mind into two parts. The first part uses perspective just like any normal person. The second part goes off and listens to and watches flat Earth perspective videos. It becomes brainwashed into believing flat Earth perspective makes sense, and is the way things work. The flat Earther has formed a religion for himself in this second part.
Now, this wouldn't be so bad. What makes it really goofy is that then the flat Earther gives the second part the control of his formal beliefs, while he lets the first part remain active in his standard life-operation understandings. We have a two-part person in the flat Earther. And the only part you normally hear is the part that is controlled by the flat Earth religion, the second part.
It isn't that the other part is gone. He needs it to live life, and walk among other people. It's just that the second part has taken over his belief system.
Flat Earth people are "special" people who have very strong mentalities. It's okay to leave them in their delusions. Just watch out for yourself when you are in their presence, and walk away when they start getting a little dangerous. The forum, here, is a good buffer... one that keeps them from actually hurting normal people.
Stop arguing something so obvious, !!
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Ball earthers are good at "finding" ways they think will "debunk" flat earth tesis
Well now I'll do the same with you, ball earthers and you should never post any ball earth crap from now on..
With something so simple even a child could understand..
If earth is a ball, Why the moon is always illuminated at night? why sunlight can always reach the moon if it is not because sun is only far away but in an horizontal line, not in a vertical line somewhere in other part of your "globe".
Not sure if trolling, but in any case I used ms paint to show you. It's to do with angles.
The only time the sunlight can't directly hit the moon is during a lunar eclipse, where the Earth is directly between the Sun and moon. You might think the moon would disappear fully and turn black, but there is a certain amount of light that refracts through the Earth's atmosphere, causing a shift in light frequency and making the moon appear red, rather than totally black (and invisible).
Jump to: