If the metrics and physics are all screwed up, then a flat plane is nolonger a flat plane.
In other words. The earth is viewable as a sphere, ergo, our perception of all things is distorted in a way that can't be measured. Meaning. What we view as flat, isn't flat.
Exactly. :)In other words. The earth is viewable as a sphere, ergo, our perception of all things is distorted in a way that can't be measured. Meaning. What we view as flat, isn't flat.
What Ive been saying all along is that if we change are definition of straight (If this case an uneffected beam of light), and say instead that its the surface of the earth, and that therefore light is bent. We would be unable to tell the differance. Except that the earth would therefore need to either an edge or an infinity point. To not be able to tell if it had either of these the metric would need to change so as it was impossible to reach either. The only problem left then, is that there is one point of the original globe model (and as I said earler all points above and below it), that cannot exist, so as long as its impossible to be at every point of the earth at the same time, you cannot tell.
What I'm saying is if the probe is in the path of the pushed away light *after* its been pushed away and towards the probe, then it should appear as if the probe is looking directly at the sun.
And it would. In your model if the probe is looking directly at the sun, then its a straight line from (say), the lens to the sun, in my model it still sees the sun, but the light hasnt traveled in a straight line to get there. It sure doesn't look like blank space
I ment not earth, but space. Very badly worded I accept. So they are still wrong.
I win.
But you were not challanged to show them wrong, but rather prove to me that the earth was indead a globe. Which as there is at least another model that gives all the same obsevational reasult you cannot do.I win.
Sciene if full of these, things that are almost certainly correct, or at the least give the simplest explination. What should distuguish a scientist from a fudementalist, is that a scientist shouldnt mind if the fundimental premis of the system is questioned.
If I had asked you to prove that Evolution was correct, there would have been a load of fundimental religious posts, and we would have been unable to actualy discuss the problem, because it would be impossible for some people to question the fundimental premis that God may not exist.
What tends to happen though is that people who have decided to join the "Sceince" camp, bring to it an almost "religious" belief that it must be correct. However as flame as pointed out several times sceince isnt like that anymore to scientists, it only like that to the fan base (And chemists, hahahahah)
If a fundemental premis is shown to be "questionable" a good therist should think about it. Whereas a good follower of a religion seems more likly to get a stick.