Bendy Light Disproof?

  • 88 Replies
  • 10569 Views
Bendy Light Disproof?
« on: March 17, 2013, 10:29:51 AM »
A few weeks ago I was looking at a thread about bendy light and I realized something: Bendy light would create a 'line' of suns.
It would be easier to show you rather than explain, so I did the math and plotted the path of the light from the sun from two rays. This is what I got: (I hope I know how to post pictures...)

And this is the math for the two rays of light:
3,000=.75∛(β〖8,838〗^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
3,000=.75∛(β6,101,210,217,739,536/34,596,000,000)
4,000=∛β176,355.94339633298647242455775234
64,000,000,000=β176,355.94339633298647242455775234
β=362,902

y=.75∛(362,902*x^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
Y = (.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)


3,000=.75∛(β〖7,000〗^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
4,000=∛(β2,401,000,000,000,000/34,596,000,000)
64,000,000,000=β69,401.086830847496820441669557174
β=922,175

y=.75∛(922,175*x^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
Y = (.75)((922175/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)

So, as you can see (at about x=1,000), the rays meet, which would create the illusion of 2 suns. Of course, there are many more rays that that, so in reality it would just look like a longer sun. This would be apparent at all altitudes, being more apparent the higher up you go, which is not observed.
What do you think?

Edit: Wait a minute, need to fix picture...
Edit2: Yay

Edit3: See page 4 for a more accurate representation.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 02:54:17 PM by Bollybill »
Why use evidence
Ok

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2013, 12:25:24 PM »
This will probably explain why the Antarctic appears to have 6 months of daylight around the edge.

Lol? What does that even have to do with the op?
You started it.

Pythagoras can't spell. Scrptimatic can't do math. Stop spamming this thread with inane quips at each other please. And stop trolling as well.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2013, 12:32:01 PM »
This will probably explain why the Antarctic appears to have 6 months of daylight around the edge.

Lol? What does that even have to do with the op?
You started it.

Pythagoras can't spell. Scrptimatic can't do math. Stop spamming this thread with inane quips at each other please. And stop trolling as well.
Same goes for you, clown.

I've never made a personal attack on you and never will. Try and respect the forum etiquette and contribute to the thread. Same for everyone else putting down Sceptimatics comment. The OP is interesting and deserves a conversation
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2013, 12:49:23 PM »
Good for you. Don't call me clown and please make your point elsewhere.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2013, 12:04:38 AM »
β=362,902
β=922,175

Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2013, 12:32:32 PM »
β=362,902
β=922,175

Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.

The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?
Why use evidence
Ok

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2013, 06:33:48 AM »
β=362,902
β=922,175

Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.

That is just the point. The Bishop constant is no constant at all. It depends on where you are and where the Sun is. In the end you need intelligent air to get the idea of bendy light to work.

But of course I might be wrong and you can tell us, once and for all, the value of the Bishop constant. If it exists at all (as a constant, at least) it is pretty straightforward to calculate.

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2013, 02:21:30 PM »
But of course I might be wrong and you can tell us, once and for all, the value of the Bishop constant. If it exists at all (as a constant, at least) it is pretty straightforward to calculate.

It does.  It's 0.  :P

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2013, 02:37:16 PM »
That's odd, I expected there to be some discussion in this thread. Until that happens I guess we can assume bendy light is simply wrong.
Why use evidence
Ok

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2013, 06:34:28 AM »
The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?

It works by being constant.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2013, 08:16:21 AM »
The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?

It works by being constant.

You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.

On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2013, 08:29:42 AM »
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.

The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.

On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.

How do you know that his value is correct?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2013, 08:39:28 AM »
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.

The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.

On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.

How do you know that his value is correct?

Can you give me an example of a constant, other than the Bishop's constant, that has a varying value when you solve for it in an equation?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2013, 08:41:19 AM »
Can you give me an example of a constant, other than the Bishop's constant, that has a varying value when you solve for it in an equation?

No. If I could, then it would not be a constant.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2013, 08:45:29 AM »
Can you give me an example of a constant, other than the Bishop's constant, that has a varying value when you solve for it in an equation?

No. If I could, then it would not be a constant.

So then solving for two different values of Bishop's constant in your equation shows that it is not a constant?  Or was the math performed improperly?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2013, 08:58:56 AM »
So then solving for two different values of Bishop's constant in your equation shows that it is not a constant?  Or was the math performed improperly?

The two sets of values the OP used to calculate the Bishop constant are each valid for a specific value of the Bishop constant. Since the Bishop constant has not yet been measured, it is possible that either or neither of them is correct, but not both.

Applying that statement to the graph in the OP, those two paths for light would never exist together. One or neither of them could be correct, but if one is correct then the other is not.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2013, 09:10:37 AM »
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.

The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.


Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science. And the claim made when the Bishop constant was defined was that there is a constant that, if placed in the cubic formula proposed, would make the calculations from the formula match real life observations.

The claim has never even been completed, since nobody has declared a value for this supposed constant. The claim itself has been invalidated by its own proponents by their reluctance to even make a complete claim.

So, the Bishop Constant is not even a constant, not even a working concept. It is just a tantrum.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2013, 09:23:41 AM »
So if you believe this:

The two sets of values the OP used to calculate the Bishop constant are each valid for a specific value of the Bishop constant. Since the Bishop constant has not yet been measured, it is possible that either or neither of them is correct, but not both.

Then why did you challenge Bollybill's finding of two different values of the Bishop's Constant? (quoted below)

β=362,902
β=922,175

Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2013, 11:39:04 AM »
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.
Why use evidence
Ok

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2013, 02:05:25 PM »
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.

No, that is a consequence of you misunderstanding bendy light. Parsifal is correct in asserting that a constant is by definition always the same number.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2013, 02:34:35 PM »
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.

No, that is a consequence of you misunderstanding bendy light. Parsifal is correct in asserting that a constant is by definition always the same number.

I never said anything about the constant, I'm saying that those two rays of light do coexist, and do defy the theory of bendy light.
Why use evidence
Ok

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2013, 02:46:57 PM »
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.

No, that is a consequence of you misunderstanding bendy light. Parsifal is correct in asserting that a constant is by definition always the same number.

Yes he is, but he also said that Bishop's Constant is not proven, and if the equations derive different values of it, with no operational error by the person calculating then there is obviously issues with the theory.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2013, 03:02:12 PM »
Bollybill,

I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?

Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2013, 04:05:31 PM »
Bollybill,

I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?

Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.

Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.

I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.
Why use evidence
Ok

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2013, 04:45:49 PM »
Bollybill,

I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?

Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.

Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.

I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.

Forget the second point, I got it now.

But regarding the first one: given that light bends at an unknown rate, doesn't that mean that we know neigther the real height of the sun nor the real distance of the sun to the d/n line?

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2013, 05:07:09 PM »
Bollybill,

I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?

Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.

Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.

I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.

Forget the second point, I got it now.

But regarding the first one: given that light bends at an unknown rate, doesn't that mean that we know neither the real height of the sun nor the real distance of the sun to the d/n line?

That may be true, but I am going off of the height most people believe it is. As for the x, I'm pretty sure it is correct, although it ignores the path light would have to travel in 1/4 of a circle, complicating bendy light even further.

Even if they are unknown, this affect will still happen, which is why the math or the right equation (which Parsifal says is, of course, an estimate) is not that important to this thread/point.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 05:08:54 PM by Bollybill »
Why use evidence
Ok

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2013, 06:03:53 PM »
Bollybill,

I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?

Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.

Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.

I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.

Forget the second point, I got it now.

But regarding the first one: given that light bends at an unknown rate, doesn't that mean that we know neither the real height of the sun nor the real distance of the sun to the d/n line?

That may be true, but I am going off of the height most people believe it is. As for the x, I'm pretty sure it is correct, although it ignores the path light would have to travel in 1/4 of a circle, complicating bendy light even further.

Even if they are unknown, this affect will still happen, which is why the math or the right equation (which Parsifal says is, of course, an estimate) is not that important to this thread/point.

The value for the height of the sun's path was adopted from an early 20th century Christian sect led by a certain Wilbur G. Voliva. I dimly remember having read in a contemporary newspaper article they got the distance of the sun by comparing its angle at 2 different latitudes. They could have disproven their own theory by meassuring from a third point, but let's assume the value is right. But then the premise of this calculation is, that light does not bend, that is, that beta is 0. For any other value of beta  the distance must be > 3000, given that light bends upwards.

Your second statement to me seems very true though. Regardless of the value of beta, we had always rays that cross. If that is correct, you have done quite valuable work for FET. A serious FE could now rely on your findings and search for a better equation that excludes the Bollybill-effect.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2013, 07:04:21 PM »
Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science.

Incorrect. From Wiktionary:

"An established principle in some artistic practice or science that is universally received."

And the claim made when the Bishop constant was defined was that there is a constant that, if placed in the cubic formula proposed, would make the calculations from the formula match real life observations.

No.

The claim has never even been completed, since nobody has declared a value for this supposed constant. The claim itself has been invalidated by its own proponents by their reluctance to even make a complete claim.

No.

So, the Bishop Constant is not even a constant, not even a working concept. It is just a tantrum.

No.

So if you believe this:

The two sets of values the OP used to calculate the Bishop constant are each valid for a specific value of the Bishop constant. Since the Bishop constant has not yet been measured, it is possible that either or neither of them is correct, but not both.

Then why did you challenge Bollybill's finding of two different values of the Bishop's Constant? (quoted below)

Because he is asserting that they are both valid simultaneously.

How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.

No, it would not. If you would care to provide some reasoning for this, then I will be happy to refute it.

Yes he is, but he also said that Bishop's Constant is not proven, and if the equations derive different values of it, with no operational error by the person calculating then there is obviously issues with the theory.

No, it means that the two curves are alternatives. If one represents reality, then the other does not. You cannot start with an arbitrary assumption (that two paths for light are valid together) and then use that to disprove the theory you are working with. The initial assumption must be justified.

and the second x is a random place slightly closer.

Almost 2000 miles is not "slightly" closer. The path of light at the second observer would not even come close to being horizontal, and yet you have it represented that way. Why?

Even if they are unknown, this affect will still happen, which is why the math or the right equation (which Parsifal says is, of course, an estimate) is not that important to this thread/point.

Please justify this statement.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2013, 08:05:03 PM »
Quote
No, it means that the two curves are alternatives. If one represents reality, then the other does not. You cannot start with an arbitrary assumption (that two paths for light are valid together) and then use that to disprove the theory you are working with. The initial assumption must be justified.
This isn't the same ray of light. Obviously two different rays can and do coexist, and by applying your equation to them this is the result produced.

Quote
Almost 2000 miles is not "slightly" closer. The path of light at the second observer would not even come close to being horizontal, and yet you have it represented that way. Why?

Alright I didn't mean slightly but yea, it is closer of course. The second ray is following your equation too, so there must be a flaw with it. Like I said, the math doesn't even matter 100%, but I'll use it so long as you provide the equation. If I did graph a closer point this would still show up, I just chose that number.

Quote
Please justify this statement.

You have said yourself that the light would have to bend on its way back up. Also, we both know the equation you have presented may not be the most accurate, but it still portrays the theory. However, it still represents what would happen in reality. Even if the equation were to change, this problem would still arise, due to the light still acting similarly.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 08:06:40 PM by Bollybill »
Why use evidence
Ok

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12169
  • google
Re: Bendy Light Disproof?
« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2013, 08:11:17 PM »
This isn't the same ray of light. Obviously two different rays can and do coexist, and by applying your equation to them this is the result produced.
Let me dumben this down for you. Gravitational acceleration in RET is (roughly) constant. If you drop two items out of your window, they should pretty much share g. If I tell you that, while remaining on Earth, I dropped one item with g=9.81ms^-2 and another item with g=60ms^-2, the problem is not that Newtonian physics suddenly stopped working. The problem is that I arbitrarily decided to fuck with a constant. That's exactly what you're doing here.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)