Re: Look up in the sky....

by Awoken2 Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:11 pm

Well said Waffle

by max2000 Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:29 pm

Even if there beliefs are obviously Silly? The Moon phases have been explained already by the good youtube vid.

Aren't I "Free" to carry on with a discussion?

by Waffle Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:06 pm

if your discussion is free from insults to others, no matter how "silly" you may deem their beliefs then by all means feel free to continue.

by max2000 Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:08 pm

I think I will call it Quits.

Good day to you.

by max2000 Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:53 pm

Light Diffusion in Action.

Look up in the sky.... - Page 3 Sunset10

Took this out my Front Door last Sept'

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:26 am

when there is a demonstrable explanation there is little reason to be skeptical about it , being paranoid about information is only a product of your own ignorance and lack of background knowledge into any particular subject and a play to make you confused which appears to be working on some .
You can not be expected to be an expert in everything , so to have to question everything is a very problematic position to put yourself in. So i suggest a sensible approach is to question that which matters most first ! Then second worry about things you can actually change that make a difference ! Worry about the other stuff in any spare time left over.

The thread started with a reasonable observation , the moon doesnt look right to our eyes when you think in straight lines. A feasible answer was given that refraction may be occurring . To rebut the answer you must rebut the evidence ie show that refraction does not occur through our atmosphere(it doesnot matter what your own observations are, unless you have evidence to show that firstly refraction as the commonly held scientific view is wrong then we have no reason to suspect the theory is wrong or to come up with or go along with a new theory!) . I donot think it was NASSA who made the claim in the first so to say NASSA cant be trusted is neither here nor there .
I dont think calling a theory silly is insulting ,when there is no reason for the idea it is pretty silly to throw everything else away.
Being insulted is one thing but intending to be insulting is another which is not acceptable, i dont see the intent with the "silly"comment it was aimed at beliefs not the man.

by tent peg Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:11 am

It's all about the edge guys.
No photos, video, expeditions, nothing.
EVER!
Why?
Because we live on a globe.
Since this theory started there has been plenty of people trying to show evidence for both sides.
Globe evidence is more compelling, and based on common sense imo.
If the earth was flat, surely the easiest thing to do would be to just go to the edge.
Why can't we do that simple task?
Because we live on a globe.
The flat earth theory is silly, and this statement is aimed at the the belief, not the man.
It's very obviously a psy op, being used to waste the time of the naive, and rope in the 'opposing side' (divide and conquer?)too.
Talking about whether the earth is flat or a globe in this topic is very relevant too imo.

by Guest Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:07 pm

Hi all

When i saw the title to this thread i immediately thought chemtrails or flat earth. What i saw in the o.p. suggested a soft introduction to f.e. (a subject i enjoy btw) and I thought 'good luck buddy!'

There is nothing to 'fear' about the subject itself - it is very much a valid truther subject. The only problem is the intense level of cognitive dissonance it seems to evoke.

i think it wrong to ridicule believers in the 'alternate-shape-earth theories' on the basis that some of us had the same c.d. reaction to the subject matter of goodf (for example) and we've certainly been ridiculed for beliefs we've held, and we labelled our detractors as closed-minded when they scoffed without bothering to research. Ridiculing the belief is just a side-step from ridiculing the believer too.

So is it possible to maintain the spirit of brotherhood we share here, and continue this thread in the manner it started? ie friendly? There's no avoiding this subject and it is fun if approached in the right spirit. And if it really winds you up, then why get involved at all? It's usually trolls do that, and i know there's none amongst us. Just pick a thread more to your liking and spread your positivity instead.

Not meaning to upset anyone here, i'm just sayin'....

Cheers!

by max2000 Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:16 pm

Sir Francis Drake set sail on a particular voyage.

His Men spent most of the time looking for the Edge that they missed the Iceberg that sank his ship.

Ah well. Laughing

by Guest Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:25 pm

Hi max2000

Sounds like fun. Thanks.

Cheers!

by Guest Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:44 pm

Hi tent peg

Hope you don't mind me asking but how many pro-f.e. vids have you watched with an open mind?

In my experience most converts to this theory (including myself) got started by trying to de-bunk it. The points you raised are all answered rather quickly in lots and lots of vids on the subject which suggests that you have yet to take the time to watch some.

If you haven't watched some then your conclusion that the subject is 'silly' just from the points you raised points to cognitive dissonance. This is perfectly understandable. What is less understandable is why you feel the need to share a negative opinion without any facts being available to you.

Now i don't 'know' that it's flat - but at the same time you don't 'know' it's a globe. So we're just sharing opinion, both depending on data put before us by other people neither of us know. So no need to belittle the subject or the debaters. Peace, brother...

Please, check some vids. If you find something that de-bunks the whole thing put it up - and i promise i will thank you for it.

Cheers!

by Little D Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:09 pm

Snell's law and refraction

Snell's laws quantifies refraction between two media. Here we use animations to illustrate and to derive Snell's law, then show an experiment to test the law and to measure the refractive index of glass.

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/light/Snells_law_and_refraction.htm

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/light/geometrical-optics/index.html

Refraction - Science experiment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9UDKLZHmCM

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:54 pm

stay on topic flatearthers! Your videos do not answer the questions raised about the moon . to advance an actual debate refraction needs to be delt with . Otherwise ill lock the thread .

by max2000 Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:01 pm

Pay Attention at the Back.

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:05 pm

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:13 pm

The problems I have with refraction is it does not answer why the light reflected from the earth does not show up on the unobservable shadow of moon. It also doesn't answer why we can observe the moon in its true location, but not the sun. This is proved when they fire a laser from the apache point observatory to a reflective source on the moon, very accurately.

According to the data I have seen the refraction occurs when the light enters or is in our atmosphere.

Why then does the moons position not change due to refraction, but the suns does and why does the suns light reflecting off the earth not light up the "shadow" on the moon? Is this also refraction? coincidently I have found that refraction conveniently answers quite a few anomalies, such as some observed mirages, but does not appear to have a consistent performance.

Does refraction also mean if I am viewing an object at the visible horizon, that is not its true location? or if I am looking at a plane flying 30,000 feet that is not its true location either?

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:32 pm

Also on the topic of firing a laser at a tiny reflective source on the moon, how can we do this so accurately when we would need to take refraction into account?

How does the laser point so precisely at the source when in the video demonstration above and almost all other material I have been reading it quite clearly bends, altering its direction.

It raises the question, is the moon exempt from all refraction theories? if so then why? when even mirages over short distances within our atmosphere can be observed, apparently due to refraction.

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:35 pm

Does refraction also mean if I am viewing an object at the visible horizon, that is not its true location? or if I am looking at a plane flying 30,000 feet that is not its true location either?

it happens at the boundary layer , once the light is in our atmosphere we dont see the effect, exept when there is a high or low density in the air such as above tarmac on a hot day , air humidity and temp /density is a factor as it creates a kind of boundary within the same volume.
With the laser it is being aimed, perhaps they took any effect into consideration and did it when the moon was in the best phase for less refraction which all depends on the angle of incidence.

Think of aiming a laser pointer at something, then put a glass of water in front, you can still get the laser where you want it by changing the angle easily enough.

by Little D Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:37 pm

Sun reflecting off the moon during a lunar eclipse,

Refraction

The change in direction of a wave when it changes medium.

Ever seen a lunar eclipse and wondered why the moon looked red? The reason has to do with a phenomenon called refraction. This simple experiment will help you understand refraction and demonstrate it for yourself. Then, you'll be able to see how these principles apply to space.

http://web.mit.edu/knazemi/www/advancedExperiment1.htm

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:49 pm

Very interesting ALAB so the light does in fact refract when passing through our atmosphere onto the moon, in this case more so the red light waves, unless I'm mistaken.

This occurs both at entry and at exit, so why then can we fire a laser directly at a tiny object on the moon in its visible position when the moon should not be at its visible position at all, nor should the laser be travelling directly at the target once leaving our medium.

We are also unable to explain why the light reflected from the surface of the earth does not light up the unobservable shadow on the moon.

I am looking for solutions, but refraction is unable to answer these questions at the moment.

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:53 pm

magnetism causes red/blue shift , it bends the path of light too.

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:01 pm

Apparently gravity might also, it sounds like there are a number of factors that have a profound influence on the path light travels. Which is interesting, but unfortunately raises more questions, what other factors need to be calculated, if refraction isn't already enough to deal with, they also have to consider magnetism and gravity, which by all accounts also bends space time, so the void between earth and the moon may also be warped.

How on earth do they take all that into consideration and do this?

The Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) has achieved 1 mm range precision to the moon, which should lead to approximately 1 order-of-magnitude improvements in several tests of fundamental properties of gravity.

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:09 pm

so you want to compare diffuse reflected light from a colored earth with pointing an extremely powerful laser ? And you cant see how they might not give the same result?
space time is not a thing and has no effect on anything !
aiming a laser is easy,try with a glass and a mirror, u can easy get the beam to reflect back along the line of incidence .

by Waffle Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:18 pm

aiming a laser is easy, but its not when we should be taking refraction into consideration and now magnetism, according to general relativity light follows the space time curvature, so it is a cofactor that they would need to consider. I can see this isn't drawing up any conclusions.

There will always be unanswered questions......

by **Lopsum** Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:21 pm

it is easy , it is hard to judge before aiming, but the act of aiming is v easy with a laser because it gives constant feedback as to its position wich can be adjusted as necessary.

by Sponsored content