Closed Thread
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 4 14 15 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 283

Thread: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

  1. Link to Post #61
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    64
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,556 times in 1,984 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by loveoflife (here)
    Another interesting question.

    I often wonder about that very thing. I mean, on a clear night, one can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided, which is astronomers say is

    Quote 2,538,000 light years

    Andromeda Galaxy, Distance to Earth
    from earth. Now, I know that Andromeda is very large, being a galaxy, after all. But more than 2.5 million light years away? How could we see anything that is that far away? Maybe the sun, moon, planets and stars are exactly as far away as they appear to be?

    p.s. I do not subscribe to the flat-earth paradigm, though.

    addition I am being serious, btw. I really do wonder about it.
    Last edited by Selkie; 25th July 2015 at 13:37.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    DarMar (25th July 2015), loveoflife (25th July 2015), selinam (26th July 2015), Wide-Eyed (28th August 2015)

  3. Link to Post #62
    UK Avalon Member loveoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th February 2014
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 1,217 times in 312 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    When did ridicule become an acceptable response? It only reveals the mindset of the poster.



    The folowing quote is the introduction to the facebook page, from where an interesting debate ensues. It answers many asked questions from flat earthers pov and answers the question regarding the edge. It is not surprising that cognitive dissonance is the reaction to many of these claims that turn everything we are taught on its head.

    Why is this topic considered to controversial for this and other forums but not for facebook? I am considering this thread to be a waste of my time expecting an open minded response here.

    I am a member of several good FB groups and i do find that when it comes to controversial or conspiracy information in fact most things i hear it first on FB.

    Quote Attention please read before posting! Trolls and shills, your shenanigans won't fly here. So go pull them at the Flat Earth society group. This is an intellectual debate group. If you have to insult someone to make your point you will be removed. Please keep your posts about real observable science and logic no religion. By observable science I mean science that anyone can observe, not relying on million-dollar machines we can't use and were just supposed to accept their results as truth?

    Some FAQ.

    1. Can you fall off the edge?
    No, you can't fall off the edge, there is an ice wall possibly 2 miles high at the edge of our habitat. Or there is an infinite plane beyond this edge. Earth is not a planet. Earth is a plane. A plane of existence, a realm.

    2. Do photos from space prove Earth is a sphere?
    All photos of Earth from space are fake.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c

    3. Why the lie?
    http://ifers.boards.net/thread/18/why-lie-flat-earth

    4. How does gravity work on the FE?
    Gravity does not exist, gravity as you know it is an effect of the electro-magnetic force.
    In this article CERN has omitted gravity.
    http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model

    Gravity on the flat Earth.
    The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Electro = Electron exchange. Magnetic = Attraction between the negative and positive. Spectrum - The wavelengths of energy in different concentrations and densities. So we are in a sea of fluctuating energy. If you have an empty space that is a 'negative body' and if you have a density of energy such as an electron, 'positive body' that has a higher density of energy than the negative body, it is drawn towards other higher densities of energy as its actually searching for the path of least resistance. Two positive bodies are 'attracted' to each other as the higher energy density of both of them creates a larger negative entropy between them and falling into each other is the path of least resistance.. As the two higher energy densities approach and come closer that will increase momentum. As they reach maximum velocity and maximum energy potential with the minimum amount of space between them, they also reach maximum energy potential. Upon approach or energy maximum the energy looks to continue on its path of least resistance in an altered direction reactionary to the combined forces. This is the 'Dynamics' The 'Dynamo' of positive and negative bodies always attracting and approaching and colliding and moving. The combined Electrodynamic Electromagnetic Spectrum creates a Quantum flow of entanglement. So like if two electrons approach each other and their energy causes them to veer around each other than the path of least resistance is for them to spin or rotate around each other. The centripetal force of the rotation gives of a higher vibrational shell of energy from the combined forces. The two positive bodies rotating around each other in an orbital free fall have now formed a new negative entropy point in between them out of dynamic equilibrium, and the other shell of higher energy potential causes a torus effect on the central negative space where energy is drawn towards falling to the new center of negative space. This shelling of energy is what everyone refers to as 'gravity' So we as people are a giant massive wad of structured electrodynamic energy potential. We have a greater she'll of energy vibrating around our central mass. So we are attracted to the earth's surface through this 'pull' of electrodynamic potential of our Electromagnetic Spectrum of energy vibration searching to fill the gaps of least negative entropy. 'Gravity' is not a force all its own but a Quantum byproduct of electromagnetism.

    This is coulumbs law.
    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/…/es.../Coulomb-s-Law

    5. How does the sun work on the FE?
    The sun's diameter is 33 miles and altitude is approx. 3000 miles. The sun works like a spotlight shining on about half of the earth while the parts that don't get light is night. The sun orbits in circles around the flat earth. The moon is the same size and has a slower orbit when the moon gets in front of the sun is how the solar eclipse works.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XugZ...ature=youtu.be
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY0xhUOL3vM&app=desktop
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5knH393h1c

    6. Do ships on the horizon dip below the horizon?
    Ships on the horizon get smaller as they get further away they do not go over the horizon. You can zoom in with a camera or binoculars and still see them.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFhhCYYkILw

    7. Do toilets flush the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere?
    Toilets flush the way they were designed to flush. Has nothing to do with where they are flushed.

    8. How does the lunar eclipse work on FE?

    "The several cases above advanced are logically destructive of the notion that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth. As before stated, the earth is proved to be a plane, without motion, and always several hundred miles below the sun and moon, and cannot, by any known possibility come between them. It cannot therefore intercept the light of the sun, and throw its own shadow upon the moon. If such a thing were a natural possibility, how could the moon continue to shine during the whole or any considerable part of the period of its passage through the dark shadow of the earth? Refraction, or what has been called "Earth-light," will not aid in the explanation; because the light of the moon is at such times "like the glowing heat of fire tinged with deep red." "Reddish is not the word to express it, it was red- red hot." "The reddish light made it, seem to be on fire." "It looked like a fire smouldering in its ashes." "Its tint was that of red-hot copper." The sunlight is on an entirely different colour to that of the eclipsed moon; and it is contrary to know optical principles to say that light when refracted or reflected, or both simultaneously, is thereby changed in colour. If a light of a given colour is seen through a great depth of a comparatively dense medium, as the sun is often seen in winter through the fog and vapour of the atmosphere, it appears of a different colour, and generally of such as that which the moon so often gives during a total eclipse; but a shadow cannot produce any such effect, as it is, in fact, not an entity at all, but simply the absence of light.

    From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible; the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon us by the evidence but is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.

    If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected."
    ~Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGGuxxOV964

    9. What about the Coriolis effect?

    Coriolis effect
    The Coriolis effect Is of the electro-magnetic force, not from the rotation of the Earth.
    If the world is flat and electromagnetism is the underlying force holding everything together, than a 'strait' line magnetically would follow the curve. North will always be North of an Eastern arch tangent. The electromagnetism effects everything molecule in the euclidean space locking everything in the same magnetic revolution. You can think of it as a needle on a record. Does the needle stay on the record continuing on the curve? Or does the needle slide off tangent?

    It also reinforces the Coriolis effect, as it can be demonstrated by the flight of a bullet.
    The electromagnetism is pulling ionically or giving charge to the atoms of the bullet when traveling in the Eastern Direction, and therefore gives rise to the bullet with electromagnetic additive energy giving advantage to the rotation. While creating drag to the west.

    The current theory is wrong on a spherical Earth. If the bullet travels East, the rotation of the Earth to the East should decrease the distance traveled for the bullet as the earth travels forward in the same direction as the bullet. However we see a bullet traveling East bound to actually Rise higher over a greater distance.

    The current Coriolis theory claims it is the curvature of the Earth that explains this plus rotation.

    However the curvature would be consistent in the current theory, so a bullet traveling in the western direction should fly further faster, traveling counter to the rotation. But, it doesn't..it drops with the drag of the ionic flow when traveling west.

    If you fire a bullet North or South you get the cross arch Coriolis tangent you are looking for with the strait road theory. A bullet traveling North bound goes strait and the disk rotates underneath it. The general relativity of the bullet traveling strait appears to arch counter to the FE Electromagnetic pull of the disc rotation underneath it..

    10. What about the Foucault pendulum?

    Foucault pendulum

    The Foucault pendulum measures the electro-magnetic force double torus rotation.
    The Foucault pendulum travels 11degrees per hour. The sun is traveling at 15 degrees per hour.
    The Foucault pendulum is rotating electrodynamicly as its mass of atoms is pulled at a constant by the square root of the Sun's rotation plus Pi+Phi which gives you the drag variance.

    You can verify this by calculating the variance in a full Foucault pendulum 'day' which takes ~32.7 hours multiply 24xPhi 1.617 will give you the reminder of ~8.8, the time variance between a solar day and the Foucault pendulum day (8.7)+ the Coriolis Effect for a total of 8.857 the atomic time calculation. Which is really just an addition of Phi to the 8.7 total. For ~8.8.

    Keep in mind these calculations are supposed to be Cubic Euclidean Geometry equations and have been simplified for ease of comprehension.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to loveoflife For This Post:

    terragunn (29th August 2015)

  5. Link to Post #63
    Moderator (on Sabbatical) Harley's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th September 2010
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    4,158
    Thanked 9,324 times in 1,375 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Hi Silkie,

    Quote Posted by Silkie (here)

    I often wonder about that very thing. I mean, on a clear night, one can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided, which is astronomers say is

    Quote 2,538,000 light years

    Andromeda Galaxy, Distance to Earth
    from earth. Now, I know that Andromeda is very large, being a galaxy, after all. But more than 2.5 million light years away? How could we see anything that is that far away? Maybe the sun, moon, planets and stars are exactly as far away as they appear to be?

    p.s. I do not subscribe to the flat-earth paradigm, though.

    addition I am being serious, btw. I really do wonder about it.
    We are not seeing objects that are 2.5 million light years away. What we are seeing is the light that has been generated by those objects and is just now arriving here.

    When we look up at the stars we are actually seeing the past.


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Harley For This Post:

    alh02 (25th July 2015), Wide-Eyed (28th August 2015)

  7. Link to Post #64
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    64
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,556 times in 1,984 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by Harley (here)
    Hi Silkie,

    Quote Posted by Silkie (here)

    I often wonder about that very thing. I mean, on a clear night, one can see the Andromeda galaxy unaided, which is astronomers say is

    Quote 2,538,000 light years

    Andromeda Galaxy, Distance to Earth
    from earth. Now, I know that Andromeda is very large, being a galaxy, after all. But more than 2.5 million light years away? How could we see anything that is that far away? Maybe the sun, moon, planets and stars are exactly as far away as they appear to be?

    p.s. I do not subscribe to the flat-earth paradigm, though.

    addition I am being serious, btw. I really do wonder about it.
    We are not seeing objects that are 2.5 million light years away. What we are seeing is the light that has been generated by those objects and is just now arriving here.

    When we look up at the stars we are actually seeing the past.

    I know that's what they say. I just don't know if I believe it.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    loveoflife (26th July 2015)

  9. Link to Post #65
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,208
    Thanks
    26,345
    Thanked 35,331 times in 7,381 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by loveoflife (here)
    Another interesting question.

    Shall I explain this?

    It appears that the light is shining straight down and the spread of light beams appears to be coming from a source just a few miles above the clouds. This is a simple illusion.

    Let's fist consider how wide the opening in the clouds is .. maybe half a mile wide or so? About that. Now consider that the sun is not shining down through the clouds but straight forward through the clouds toward the camera / viewer with an infinitesimally slight downward angle, maybe a couple degrees, but enough that the beams of light can shine through and appear at a downward angle. Only one or two degrees is needed for this appearance, considering that the camera / viewer is miles from the opening in the sky where the light is streaming from -- think back to angles and trigonometry in school. Back to the about mile wide opening in the sky; consider that the viewer camera is a single point, or in the case of a real life viewer, two "cameras (eyes) about 4 inches apart -- compare to the mile wide opening, this is for all intents and purposes also a point, like a camera sensor would be. As the beams come forward toward the viewer, from a mile wide opening, several miles away, when seen from a point, the beams have to appear to spread out, even if they are coming 100% straight from a source 93 million miles away -- this is the fundamental of perspective.

    I am not sure if I explained that well enough, but trust me, anyone with good 3D spatial perception, and any knowledge of standard trigonometry would probably laugh at this claim. I did, sorry, but this is really funny. If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ... that's okay though, I've had to do a few facepalms myself for not understanding often really simple stuff -- I tend to get the hard stuff more easily
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    alh02 (25th July 2015), Dennis Leahy (25th July 2015), Selkie (25th July 2015)

  11. Link to Post #66
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    64
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,556 times in 1,984 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    What I don't understand is how visible light can travel so far...more than 2.5 million light years, in the case of Andromeda...and still be visible at all. Saying that the light we see from Andromeda left there 2.5 million light years ago does not explain anything...it just restates that Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away.

    p.s. Please understand that I am not saying that I believe that the sun, moon, etc., are as close as they appear. I just wonder about it, is all.

    addition Never mind. I just got it

    addition I am so used to thinking in terms of seeing objects that it never occurred to me that one could see light from an object that might no longer be there.

    p.s. I'm not saying that I think Andromeda is no longer there, btw!
    Last edited by Selkie; 25th July 2015 at 21:11.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (25th July 2015), Harley (26th July 2015), Jake (26th July 2015), Paul (25th July 2015)

  13. Link to Post #67
    Norway Avalon Member DarMar's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th June 2011
    Age
    42
    Posts
    472
    Thanks
    1,923
    Thanked 1,764 times in 394 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote This is a simple
    :D

    Quote If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ..
    please if you would not mind i'd like that i could facepalm myself.
    3D is my profession and i don't know about what you are talking about. seriously.
    Be careful when wandering in the woods... The wolf may approach you... And if you are approached by a solitary wolf... It is not a wolf at all!

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DarMar For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (25th July 2015), Selkie (26th July 2015), Wide-Eyed (28th August 2015)

  15. Link to Post #68
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,208
    Thanks
    26,345
    Thanked 35,331 times in 7,381 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by DarMar (here)
    Quote This is a simple
    :D

    Quote If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ..
    please if you would not mind i'd like that i could facepalm myself.
    3D is my profession and i don't know about what you are talking about. seriously.
    Will do, just give me a bit, I can show it in two rendered images ...
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (25th July 2015), Selkie (25th July 2015)

  17. Link to Post #69
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,208
    Thanks
    26,345
    Thanked 35,331 times in 7,381 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    There are two images below -- one is a screen shot from my 3D program, the other is a render. In the screenshot there are four viewports -- all are just different views of the exact same scene. In the top left quadrant you have a view from the top down. The yellow is the sunlight, blue the water, and there are hills - just like in the image. Note in this viewport the light is 100% straight. It is a simple rectangle, and represents light from 93 million miles away -- it would be traveling for all intents and purposes perfectly straight to he earth - so I made it perfectly straight. The other 3 viewports are the exact same scene, from different perspectives, and the bottom right viewport represents the view from the image. So here we have perfectly straight light, as one would see from an extremely distant object, appearing to converge directly above the clouds - clearly indicating the illusion.

    The other image is a render of the bottom right viewport, looks pretty close to the image.

    I would also like to point out the power simple words can have over ones perception. The reason why the poster seems convincing is because the poster gives 'A' suggestion as to why the appearance of the beams is the way it is. That simple suggestion becomes solidified in the mind as the answer, and it becomes difficult to see any other perspective after that. But just because the suggestion makes it "acceptable" in our mind does not mean there are not other perspectives that relay more information and give a fuller view of what is going on. Never stop at the first explanation that seems logical - try to render that explanation untrue with your best efforts, and if you cannot, then you might be on to something; but if you can, explore all options, then go from there. Works for everything.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	sunbeams.JPG
Views:	83
Size:	188.8 KB
ID:	30664
    Click image for larger version

Name:	sunbeamsrender.jpg
Views:	67
Size:	98.5 KB
ID:	30665
    Last edited by DeDukshyn; 25th July 2015 at 22:50.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    alh02 (25th July 2015), DarMar (26th July 2015), Hervé (26th July 2015), Jake (26th July 2015), Selkie (25th July 2015)

  19. Link to Post #70
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    26th September 2010
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 1,941 times in 376 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by loveoflife When did ridicule become an acceptable response? It only reveals the mindset of the poster.

    [IMG

    https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11745718_894297670643809_5411026768146268874_n.jpg ?oh=27df509e5831d28d0cbc4429603fbf1d&oe=564EEDD8[/IMG]

    The folowing quote is the introduction to the facebook page, from where an interesting debate ensues. It answers many asked questions from flat earthers pov and answers the question regarding the edge. It is not surprising that cognitive dissonance is the reaction to many of these claims that turn everything we are taught on its head.

    Why is this topic considered to controversial for this and other forums but not for facebook? I am considering this thread to be a waste of my time expecting an open minded response here.

    I am a member of several good FB groups and i do find that when it comes to controversial or conspiracy information in fact most things i hear it first on FB.
    [/QUOTE]

    I appreciate all serious discussion on this. Thankfully we are still allowed to discuss topics like this here on Avalon. Not sure why this got moved to the members only section? A topic that is way out side the box for most.
    Honestly I thought this was a joke a few weeks ago. Now I'm looking for more answers.

    After watching some of Mark Sargents material you have to think to yourself
    this should be easy to debunk right? WRONG
    He has raised a few questions indeed.

    I asked Mark Sargent a question about the sun in an email the other day.. In the flat earth model the sun is way closer to earth than the experts says.
    So why does it take between 19 Hrs and 138 Hrs for a solar flare to arrive and
    hit earth. I mean if the sun is so close??
    I haven't heard back yet.
    http://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/h...oing-to-arrive

    Here's one of Marks videos.

  20. Link to Post #71
    Norway Avalon Member DarMar's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th June 2011
    Age
    42
    Posts
    472
    Thanks
    1,923
    Thanked 1,764 times in 394 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    First i want to thank you DeDukshyn for your effort to explain. You did it simple and very efficient for explanation, which will draw us efficiently to some better understanding.
    So i did understand what you thought first time, but still there are some issues within all of this. And i want mention that your sample misses curvature and distance, also from your sample we could tell sun would be spotlight or directional light rather than omni. But i strongly agree on illusion and perspective point.

    here are some pictures to better explain my point



    in this given image we have quite big angle between rays, which suggests that light source is not that far away, because even by your given explanation this could not be achieved if light source is far away.
    this one also:


    you notice how angles from god-ray are different, those more far and closer ones. which also suggests that light source is: a) spotlight, b) not that far away

    lets examine some more real life photos of godrays taken.


    do you have any idea how to make this kind of effect when sun is omni light, really big and really far away?
    honestly with all 3D knowledge i have, i must admit i would need to use spot light and be pretty close to clouds for such effect to happen.

    this one is fav imho, proves what im talking about here.


    you notice cone shape tracking directly to sun in spotlight manner. yes perspective and stuff is here also, but that sun is aparently faaar away and where is that curvature thing?
    in other words, if we would go to top view of this picture we would get exactly the same as you presented on your images.. a very flat directional line that goes from sun towards us.

    One more thing. Did you notice hole through which light goes on your pictures is planar and very thin? clouds have volume, they are thicker than that. I know your is simplified version of this but what would be fun to take thickness into consideration while observing photos, along with perspective, spotlight and curvature.
    Be careful when wandering in the woods... The wolf may approach you... And if you are approached by a solitary wolf... It is not a wolf at all!

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DarMar For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (26th July 2015), loveoflife (26th July 2015), Wide-Eyed (28th August 2015)

  22. Link to Post #72
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,208
    Thanks
    26,345
    Thanked 35,331 times in 7,381 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by DarMar (here)
    First i want to thank you DeDukshyn for your effort to explain. You did it simple and very efficient for explanation, which will draw us efficiently to some better understanding.
    So i did understand what you thought first time, but still there are some issues within all of this. And i want mention that your sample misses curvature and distance, also from your sample we could tell sun would be spotlight or directional light rather than omni. But i strongly agree on illusion and perspective point.

    here are some pictures to better explain my point



    in this given image we have quite big angle between rays, which suggests that light source is not that far away, because even by your given explanation this could not be achieved if light source is far away.
    this one also:


    you notice how angles from god-ray are different, those more far and closer ones. which also suggests that light source is: a) spotlight, b) not that far away

    lets examine some more real life photos of godrays taken.


    do you have any idea how to make this kind of effect when sun is omni light, really big and really far away?
    honestly with all 3D knowledge i have, i must admit i would need to use spot light and be pretty close to clouds for such effect to happen.

    this one is fav imho, proves what im talking about here.


    you notice cone shape tracking directly to sun in spotlight manner. yes perspective and stuff is here also, but that sun is aparently faaar away and where is that curvature thing?
    in other words, if we would go to top view of this picture we would get exactly the same as you presented on your images.. a very flat directional line that goes from sun towards us.

    One more thing. Did you notice hole through which light goes on your pictures is planar and very thin? clouds have volume, they are thicker than that. I know your is simplified version of this but what would be fun to take thickness into consideration while observing photos, along with perspective, spotlight and curvature.
    It's all the same Darmar. As with the first example, you are aren't recognizing the size and perspective of everything. I can recreate each of the images you presented and show you the same as easily as I did with the first. (I don't have time today as I am leaving for vacation in a few minutes). Also consider all those shots are taken with a very wide angle camera - you know how that shifts the perspective of the image don't you?

    Again, nothing in those images I couldn't easily reproduce exactly like I did the original. The last image you posted -- your fave -- is exactly the same as the one I did, except the sun is even lower and the beams are seen above. it is the same effect exactly.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    Jake (26th July 2015)

  24. Link to Post #73
    Avalon Member Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,547
    Thanks
    15,176
    Thanked 20,263 times in 2,633 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Light coming from a star, or the sun is invisible to human sight. It is not until that light hits a solid object do we see a refraction. Satelites and other spacecraft must be outfitted with refracting material,, otherwise they only see planets and moons! We only see stars because the light has hit our atmosphere, reflecting/refracting the light into a spectrum that is visible..

    That is, of course,, assuming that the universe is not flat, and the moon is not made of cheese!

    Jake
    Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. Yoda....

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Jake For This Post:

    Selkie (26th July 2015)

  26. Link to Post #74
    Avalon Member 13th Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th November 2010
    Posts
    1,192
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 2,859 times in 904 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by loveoflife (here)
    Another interesting question.

    Shall I explain this?

    It appears that the light is shining straight down and the spread of light beams appears to be coming from a source just a few miles above the clouds. This is a simple illusion.

    Let's fist consider how wide the opening in the clouds is .. maybe half a mile wide or so? About that. Now consider that the sun is not shining down through the clouds but straight forward through the clouds toward the camera / viewer with an infinitesimally slight downward angle, maybe a couple degrees, but enough that the beams of light can shine through and appear at a downward angle. Only one or two degrees is needed for this appearance, considering that the camera / viewer is miles from the opening in the sky where the light is streaming from -- think back to angles and trigonometry in school. Back to the about mile wide opening in the sky; consider that the viewer camera is a single point, or in the case of a real life viewer, two "cameras (eyes) about 4 inches apart -- compare to the mile wide opening, this is for all intents and purposes also a point, like a camera sensor would be. As the beams come forward toward the viewer, from a mile wide opening, several miles away, when seen from a point, the beams have to appear to spread out, even if they are coming 100% straight from a source 93 million miles away -- this is the fundamental of perspective.

    I am not sure if I explained that well enough, but trust me, anyone with good 3D spatial perception, and any knowledge of standard trigonometry would probably laugh at this claim. I did, sorry, but this is really funny. If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ... that's okay though, I've had to do a few facepalms myself for not understanding often really simple stuff -- I tend to get the hard stuff more easily
    Only one word is need to explain this..."refraction"


    Notice that the only photos that show this phenomenon, there are clouds(water vapor) present...
    Last edited by 13th Warrior; 26th July 2015 at 15:25.
    “Bundinn er bátlaus maður”

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 13th Warrior For This Post:

    DeDukshyn (26th July 2015), Jake (26th July 2015), Selkie (26th July 2015)

  28. Link to Post #75
    Canada Avalon Member DeDukshyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    From 100 Mile House ;-)
    Language
    English
    Age
    46
    Posts
    8,208
    Thanks
    26,345
    Thanked 35,331 times in 7,381 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    Quote Posted by loveoflife (here)
    Another interesting question.

    Shall I explain this?

    It appears that the light is shining straight down and the spread of light beams appears to be coming from a source just a few miles above the clouds. This is a simple illusion.

    Let's fist consider how wide the opening in the clouds is .. maybe half a mile wide or so? About that. Now consider that the sun is not shining down through the clouds but straight forward through the clouds toward the camera / viewer with an infinitesimally slight downward angle, maybe a couple degrees, but enough that the beams of light can shine through and appear at a downward angle. Only one or two degrees is needed for this appearance, considering that the camera / viewer is miles from the opening in the sky where the light is streaming from -- think back to angles and trigonometry in school. Back to the about mile wide opening in the sky; consider that the viewer camera is a single point, or in the case of a real life viewer, two "cameras (eyes) about 4 inches apart -- compare to the mile wide opening, this is for all intents and purposes also a point, like a camera sensor would be. As the beams come forward toward the viewer, from a mile wide opening, several miles away, when seen from a point, the beams have to appear to spread out, even if they are coming 100% straight from a source 93 million miles away -- this is the fundamental of perspective.

    I am not sure if I explained that well enough, but trust me, anyone with good 3D spatial perception, and any knowledge of standard trigonometry would probably laugh at this claim. I did, sorry, but this is really funny. If my explanation isn't understandable enough, someone may further challenge me (I don't mind), and I will render some 3D images that shows clearly what I saying, it'll be a facepalm moment for anyone who really bought into this ... that's okay though, I've had to do a few facepalms myself for not understanding often really simple stuff -- I tend to get the hard stuff more easily
    Only one word is need to explain this..."refraction"
    Well in a sense, yes, the refraction really lends to the illusion that the light is beaming straight down, it's not really refraction though in the purest sense. Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself. Therefore the beams are not the light in reality, but the "refraction" of the light through the particles in the air. It is the particles in the are that we are seeing -- not the light itself. The intensity of the "beam" is strongest where the light travelled through the most atmosphere, and lightest where it travelled through the least; this lends to the illusion of the beams shooting down as opposed to forward, as they really are and as shown in my 3D example.
    When you are one step ahead of the crowd, you are a genius.
    Two steps ahead, and you are deemed a crackpot.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to DeDukshyn For This Post:

    13th Warrior (26th July 2015)

  30. Link to Post #76
    Avalon Member 13th Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th November 2010
    Posts
    1,192
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 2,859 times in 904 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Refraction: the unseen becomes seen is the essence of the word

    Name:  serveimage.jpg
Views: 185
Size:  4.2 KB
    “Bundinn er bátlaus maður”

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to 13th Warrior For This Post:

    Jake (26th July 2015)

  32. Link to Post #77
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    64
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,556 times in 1,984 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
    ... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...
    Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

    That sounds, stupid, I know, but if light is invisible, then the only way to see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, must be by the light of other stars bouncing off of it, not? Because it certainly cannot be the light from our sun, and it certainly cannot be the light of Andromeda, itself, since by definition, I could not see Andromeda if it weren't for some other light source.

    addition Then space must be awash with light that we cannot see.

    As an aside, I said to John Lash one time that that to us, the Originator is blackest black, but to itself, it is full of light.
    Last edited by Selkie; 26th July 2015 at 16:32.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    Jake (26th July 2015)

  34. Link to Post #78
    Avalon Member 13th Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th November 2010
    Posts
    1,192
    Thanks
    1,196
    Thanked 2,859 times in 904 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by Silkie (here)
    Quote Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
    ... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...
    Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

    That sounds, stupid, I know, but if light is invisible, then the only way to see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, must be by the light of other stars bouncing off of it, not? Because it certainly cannot be the light from our sun, and it certainly cannot be the light of Andromeda, itself, since by definition, I could not see Andromeda if it weren't for some other light source.

    Please correct your quoted material which is not attributed to myself.
    “Bundinn er bátlaus maður”

  35. Link to Post #79
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    64
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,556 times in 1,984 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
    Quote Posted by Silkie (here)
    Quote Posted by 13th Warrior (here)
    ... Light is invisible - it cannot be seen by the eye. They eye can only see light as it interacts with objects, it cannot see light itself...
    Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it.

    That sounds, stupid, I know, but if light is invisible, then the only way to see Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, must be by the light of other stars bouncing off of it, not? Because it certainly cannot be the light from our sun, and it certainly cannot be the light of Andromeda, itself, since by definition, I could not see Andromeda if it weren't for some other light source.

    Please correct your quoted material which is not attributed to myself.
    Oh, I'm sorry! Yes, of course I will. My mistake.

    addition Done.
    Last edited by Selkie; 26th July 2015 at 16:30.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    13th Warrior (26th July 2015), Jake (26th July 2015)

  37. Link to Post #80
    Avalon Member Jake's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Age
    47
    Posts
    3,547
    Thanks
    15,176
    Thanked 20,263 times in 2,633 posts

    Default Re: A Flat Earth not Round ...?

    Quote Then light must be bouncing off the Andromeda galaxy in order for me to see it. 
    The light from Andromeda can be seen clearly from any planet with an atmosphere.. The light refracts off of our atmosphere. If you are on, say,, the moon,,, you dont see stars or suns or galaxies. (Assuming the moon has no atmosphere. )

    but if im on the moon, looking in the direction of Andromeda, and a large dust/gas/ice particle cloud comes in between us, I may see light refractions, and the light from Andromeda will come into view,,, if only briefly... Space is Bizarre!

    From the moon, I can see Earth clearly, even though it does not have its own light... But I can't see the sun, even though it Does have it's own light source.. If im not mistaken, Heat from the sun works the same.. there is no radiant temperature, per se,,, not until the radiation hits an object is there heat! Effin bizarre! Earth does not roatate around the sun! The sun is flying through space too... The solar system trails the sun behind it! What if the universe is static, and it is SPACE that is moving? Has anyone calculated the rate of expansion? Is it possible that motion through space is an illusion caused by expansion? The amount of space between galaxies is increasing, and every galaxy is speeding away from each other.. That does not mean that they are moving,,, only that the amount of Space is increasing!!! Effin bizarre!

    Jake
    Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. Yoda....

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Jake For This Post:

    Selkie (26th July 2015)

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 4 14 15 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts