@Dynaman
@Chunks
(Dont forget, Im not claiming that it does travel in a curve, but rather that the observational evidence would be the same)
But please pause for a moment, it only shows that light hasnt followed the earths surface.
If this were true, that light was pulled toward the earth, at some distance, not only would we see the top of the boat - we would see it from above. That does not happen. We see the details we would see *IF* the light was going in a straight line, not what would see if the light had been bending toward us.
But it is true? Light doesnt follow the earths surface? If this were true, that light was pulled toward the earth, at some distance, not only would we see the top of the boat - we would see it from above. That does not happen. We see the details we would see *IF* the light was going in a straight line, not what would see if the light had been bending toward us.
@Chunks
why wouldnt light travel in a straight line?
It probably wouldnt. But not being able to see the whole boat, but only its mast. Means that the light doesnt follow the same curvature as the earth. So your conclustion that it must be round because of this observation is incorrect, you also need to prove that light travels in a straight line.(Dont forget, Im not claiming that it does travel in a curve, but rather that the observational evidence would be the same)
that light was pulled toward the earth
I never said anything like that at all. I have revered to the curve of the light, at the most as "Push away". Which I changed to "Travels in a curve" Well. IN THAT CASE. Mars Retrograde motion isn't explained.... Or is.. and you meant that the planets are going around the sun AND aren't at their proper distances... Or that they also exhibit incorrect motion.
In the classical theory, mars' retrograde was explained first by it actually backtracking, then, inacurately by it's motion around the sun.
Can you give me something more accurate? The devil really is in the details here...
You know that I cannot, this was the whole reason that people finally accepted the globe model, my entire point as been that bacause the math to do this in a globe model was easyer it became the accepted model, not because it was proven the other model was wrong, but because it becomes bloody stupid when applied to orbits (Especialy moons of the planets), its not unsolveable, but as you said you get slowdown/reverse and other stupid movements. In the classical theory, mars' retrograde was explained first by it actually backtracking, then, inacurately by it's motion around the sun.
Can you give me something more accurate? The devil really is in the details here...