Another hitch with bendy light?

  • 53 Replies
  • 8247 Views
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Another hitch with bendy light?
« on: March 26, 2013, 08:06:09 PM »
It's reasonably well know that you can determine your latitude by taking a measurement off the sun. There's even a page about it in the wiki. Thing is though, for this to work in a flat earth model, light has to do some pretty funky bending.

I'm going to use the circular, north pole centered FE model, with the sun at an altitude of 3,000 miles, as this seems to be the most commonly used model, and all measurements are based on the position of the sun at local midday on the equinox unless stated otherwise.

For an observer on the equator, the sun appears directly overhead. This is fine, it fits in with everything.

For an observer at 22.5 degrees latitude, the sun should appear to have an angular elevation, relative to the horizon, of 67.5 degrees for the latitude shot to work, which it does. But, in the FE model, it's actual angular elevation is ~63.4 degrees. Okay, so maybe we can explain the 4.1 degree difference with bendy light. Let's continue.

For an observer at 45 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 45 degrees. Again, as it should be. Um, except that this means that light is bending back again from it's 4.1 degree deviation before. Hmm. Never mind, push on.

For an observer at 67.5 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 22.5 degrees above the horizon. In the FE model, it's actual angular elevation would be ~33.7 degrees above the horizon, so now we have an 11.2 degree deviation the other way. WTF? Anyway, let's finish the data set.

For an observer at 90 degrees latitude (the North pole, or the Southern equivalent), the sun appears to be setting (or rising) for the entire day, as it is partially obscured by the horizon. But in the FE model, it's actual position would be ~26.6 degrees above the horizon. Now we have a 26.6 degree shift!

Like I said, some pretty funky bending! Of course, the straight line distances to the sun may have some influence, so I'll leave you with some calculated FE data (for the model used in this example) which someone more mathematically minded can have some fun with.

Latitude: 0, Apparent Angular elevation of sun (AAE for the rest of this data): 90, Actual: 90, Distance: 3,000 miles
Latitude: 22.5, AAE: 67.5, Actual: 63.4, Distance: 3,354.1 miles
Latitude: 45, AAE: 45, Actual: 45, Distance: 4,242.6 miles
Latitude: 67.5, AAE: 22.5, Actual: 33.7, Distance: 5,408.3 miles
Latitude: 90, AAE: 0, Actual: 26.6, Distance: 6,708.2 miles

Oh, wait, that's not all! It's not just latitude shots at midday, but sunsets as well. For someone at the equator, the sun would be about 8485.3 miles away (line of sight) when it appears to set, with an actual angular elevation of 19.5 degrees, which means that light has to change direction a second time! If you head down to 45 degrees South latitude, the sun is 10,816.7 miles away with an actual angular elevation of 15.5 degrees when it appears to set.

If anyone can explain how that works in FET, I look forward to it! Especially if the explanation is supported with working formulas.

EDIT: I just realised, it gets even worse! If you were at the South pole (or the FE equivalent thereof) at midnight on the summer solstice, the sun would be nearly 20,000 miles away, at an actual elevation of 8.8 degrees, but an apparent elevation of 23.5, AND on the opposite side of the North pole, which should be in darkness!

Of course, RET covers all of this quite gracefully and without any convoluted BS explanations.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 02:23:34 AM by Scintific Method »
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2013, 05:46:12 AM »
It's reasonably well know that you can determine your latitude by taking a measurement off the sun. There's even a page about it in the wiki. Thing is though, for this to work in a flat earth model, light has to do some pretty funky bending.

I'm going to use the circular, north pole centered FE model, with the sun at an altitude of 3,000 miles, as this seems to be the most commonly used model, and all measurements are based on the position of the sun at local midday on the equinox unless stated otherwise.

For an observer on the equator, the sun appears directly overhead. This is fine, it fits in with everything.

For an observer at 22.5 degrees latitude, the sun should appear to have an angular elevation, relative to the horizon, of 67.5 degrees for the latitude shot to work, which it does. But, in the FE model, it's actual angular elevation is ~63.4 degrees. Okay, so maybe we can explain the 4.1 degree difference with bendy light. Let's continue.

For an observer at 45 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 45 degrees. Again, as it should be. Um, except that this means that light is bending back again from it's 4.1 degree deviation before. Hmm. Never mind, push on.

For an observer at 67.5 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 22.5 degrees above the horizon. In the FE model, it's actual angular elevation would be ~33.7 degrees above the horizon, so now we have an 11.2 degree deviation the other way. WTF? Anyway, let's finish the data set.

For an observer at 90 degrees latitude (the North pole, or the Southern equivalent), the sun appears to be setting (or rising) for the entire day, as it is partially obscured by the horizon. But in the FE model, it's actual position would be ~26.6 degrees above the horizon. Now we have a 26.6 degree shift!

Like I said, some pretty funky bending! Of course, the straight line distances to the sun may have some influence, so I'll leave you with some calculated FE data (for the model used in this example) which someone more mathematically minded can have some fun with.

Latitude: 0, Apparent Angular elevation of sun (AAE for the rest of this data): 90, Actual: 90, Distance: 3,000 miles
Latitude: 22.5, AAE: 67.5, Actual: 63.4, Distance: 3,354.1 miles
Latitude: 45, AAE: 45, Actual: 45, Distance: 4,242.6 miles
Latitude: 67.5, AAE: 22.5, Actual: 33.7, Distance: 5,408.3 miles
Latitude: 90, AAE: 0, Actual: 26.6, Distance: 6,708.2 miles

Oh, wait, that's not all! It's not just latitude shots at midday, but sunsets as well. For someone at the equator, the sun would be about 8485.3 miles away (line of sight) when it appears to set, with an actual angular elevation of 19.5 degrees, which means that light has to change direction a second time! If you head down to 45 degrees South latitude, the sun is 10,816.7 miles away with an actual angular elevation of 15.5 degrees when it appears to set.

If anyone can explain how that works in FET, I look forward to it! Especially if the explanation is supported with working formulas.

EDIT: I just realised, it gets even worse! If you were at the South pole (or the FE equivalent thereof) at midnight on the summer solstice, the sun would be nearly 20,000 miles away, at an actual elevation of 8.8 degrees, but an apparent elevation of 23.5, AND on the opposite side of the North pole, which should be in darkness!

Of course, RET covers all of this quite gracefully and without any convoluted BS explanations.

This is a really substantial challenge and it would be a shame if it falls into oblivion.

But you should not insist on the 3000 miles distance for the sun path. It's a traditional value and completely unsubstantiated. Rowbotham estimated a value of 700 miles, it's the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church who first came up with 3000 miles, and if we choose a higher value we get an actual position always above the observed one. The CCAC was a flat earth believing fundamentalist domination of some thousand members, and they argued mainly with there bible, not doing any research at all, also they didn't know about bendy light. Actually 20 century flat earthism was an entirely religious thing.

Any way, all of your issues, that are independent of the choosen value of y, still stand and would currently be the most interresting thing to discuss on this forum.

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2013, 06:11:45 AM »
It would be possible to develop a simple curve-fit between the coefficients of a high order polynomial to describe bendy light accurately for all positions. I doubt anyone has done this (the Bishop constant appears to be a half-backed attempt), and I'm sure as hell not gonna do it.

By introducing bendy light, believers have essentially removed themselves from the requirement of reconciling observed and testable earthly rules for the transmission of light, insulating themselves for scientific inquiry much the same way the catholic church has done with its backtracking and god of the gaps.

Bendy light is just another detraction from the fact that FE is a anthropological phenomenon; proving or disproving FE with a formula is just as detracting as arguing for or against creationism with mathematics (people have tried and failed because creationism is not at its core a scientific proposition).

I'm sorry to derail your thread like this. In answer to your question, the bishop constant would itself have to be a non-constant function in order to make the observations fit. A higher-order polynomial for the curvature of light (with no respect for observable behaviour of light) would also fit the bill.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2013, 06:26:40 AM »
I agree. "Bendy Light" is either an absurd theory proposed by false-flag RE believers, misled FE believers, or FE believers trying to take "short-cuts". FE believers should persevere and use real-world evidence, not come up with off-the-wall theories.

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2013, 10:43:04 AM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2013, 11:00:02 AM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2013, 11:09:15 AM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.

BRUHAHA!

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2013, 11:11:12 AM »
It would be possible to develop a simple curve-fit between the coefficients of a high order polynomial to describe bendy light accurately for all positions. I doubt anyone has done this (the Bishop constant appears to be a half-backed attempt), and I'm sure as hell not gonna do it

So we don't need a root function like the one in the wiki?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2013, 07:19:13 PM by Homesick Martian »

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2013, 03:34:35 PM »
But you should not insist on the 3000 miles distance for the sun path.

I needed somewhere to start from so that I could make all the calculations, 3000 miles was chosen as it seems to pop up most frequently in flat earth models. Of course, you could start with any value for y (and use any flat earth model), and FET would still have some pretty tough explaining to do. Thank you for bringing that up though, and thanks for the extra info!

It would be possible to develop a simple curve-fit between the coefficients of a high order polynomial to describe bendy light accurately for all positions. I doubt anyone has done this (the Bishop constant appears to be a half-backed attempt), and I'm sure as hell not gonna do it.

It would be a substantial challenge, and I'm not entirely sure it would even be possible, as the behaviour of the light would have to be highly variable (yet consistently so) to accommodate sunset effects at different locations and times of year. If there are any mathematicians out there willing to take it on, it would be very interesting to see if it were even remotely possible!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2013, 06:52:56 PM »
It would be a substantial challenge, and I'm not entirely sure it would even be possible, as the behaviour of the light would have to be highly variable (yet consistently so) to accommodate sunset effects at different locations and times of year. If there are any mathematicians out there willing to take it on, it would be very interesting to see if it were even remotely possible!

I reckon I could do it with a high order curve fit. But I won't...
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2013, 07:19:06 PM »
I reckon I could do it with a high order curve fit. But I won't...

Fair 'nuff! :)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2013, 08:00:53 PM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.
I didn't see anything about perspective in the FAQ, or did you mean ENAG? 

What did you look at to verify a flat earth with a telescope?  Everything I've looked at with telescopes or binoculars regarding RET vs FET indicates a round earth to me.

?

Thork

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2013, 02:32:14 PM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.

BRUHAHA!
This is not a playground forum. Be scientific! Scientific! >o<

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2013, 07:58:16 PM »
He's kidding of course, this website is a farce.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2013, 08:19:28 PM »
I think its quite serious.

Muggsy-You have proven this with a $20 telescope?  You should publish your findings post-haste!  Save humanity from its shackles of ignorance.  You will be hailed as this days Galileo, Newton or Einstein.  Statues in your honor, your face on money.  I will help you, please detail your methods and measurements, and I can lay them out in a paper and help you submit them to journals.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12169
  • google
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2013, 11:39:18 PM »
He's kidding of course, this website is a farce.
No. Just because it's riddled with parasites like you does not mean it's not serious. We just have an ongoing angry noob problem, which even CN and AR haven't fully addressed. A lack of moderator manpower doesn't help either.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

Homesick Martian

  • 419
  • Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2013, 05:49:00 AM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.

BRUHAHA!
This is not a playground forum. Be scientific! Scientific! >o<

I should not say bruhaha in the Upper Forum.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2013, 11:01:52 PM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.

Perspective effects do not explain how the sun can appear to set, and yet be the same apparent size as it was at midday. Atmospheric magnification is no good either, as it would have to magnify all distant objects, not just the sun, moon and stars.

To reiterate: without 'bendy light', the earth is easily proven to be round with a little bit of leg work and some trigonometry.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2013, 05:49:57 AM »
You can't avoid bendy light. If you admit that light rays go straight, it is easy to prove RE (not to you, I know). I personally would be completely satisfied with a consistent mathematical description that covers up at least the behaviour of the sun and wouldn't ask if it's science, art, nonsense or whatever. Wouldn't that be a funny task for a skillful mathematician with much spare time?
Please see the FAQ for explanations pertaining to perspective. Perhaps you can verify with a telescope if you live in a sufficiently flat environment? I did so myself with a $20 model from Walmart.
So muggsybogues1, please explain to me how perspective causes the sun to be seen rising and setting much further south than it really does, in the flat earth model? In FET the equator is a circle around the north pole, so to travel east one is in reality travelling in a circle turning constantly, yet incrementally, to the left. This means that when the sun rises it is coming into view from a point up to a quarter of the way around the circle.

Because east-west is a circle, when we look east we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east and not actually east. When we look east, we see south east. If we could see far enough, we'd see the ice wall. So the sun, which is rising directly to the east, would appear to rise far to the north east. As the day progresses the sun would move further south, and then as it sets it would move further north again.

But this is not what we see. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The exact point at which it rises varies with the seasons, but not at all in the way it should in FET.

How do your perspective effects cause this?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 05:54:37 AM by Ironscotsman »

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2013, 07:51:04 PM »
That's a good point Ironscotsman, I'm going to have to do the maths on that!

Okay, so at my latitude of 30 degrees South, the sun rises due East on the equinox. It does this pretty much everywhere on earth on the equinox. In the circular, North pole centered FE model though, the sun rises 53 degrees North of East from my position, on the equinox.

On the June solstice, the sun rises 27 degrees North of East, but in the aforementioned FE model, it would actually rise 60 degrees North of East. Okay, not so bad, but...

On the December solstice, the sun rises 27 degrees South of East. In the FE model, it would be 47 degrees North of East, a massive 74 degree bend! And it only gets worse the further South you go, because on the summer solstice in the Southern hemisphere, the sun rises further and further South, the further South you go, but in the FE model, it just gets further and further North, so the required bend gets bigger.

As an aside, not only does the sun rise 27 degrees North (in June), or South (in December) of East at my latitude 30 degrees South, but it would do the same at 30 degrees North (this only works at 30 degrees though, it will change for other latitudes). Any FE'ers on here who live at that latitude can verify that.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2013, 03:57:46 AM »
Almost two weeks since originally posting this, and not even an attempt by a FE'er to support bendy light? I am disappointed. There goes the only theory that could legitimately support the flat earth theory, because without bendy light, it's child's play to prove the earth is round.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2013, 04:06:25 AM »
Yup.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2013, 08:07:27 AM »
Almost two weeks since originally posting this, and not even an attempt by a FE'er to support bendy light? I am disappointed. There goes the only theory that could legitimately support the flat earth theory, because without bendy light, it's child's play to prove the earth is round.
Strawman much?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2013, 08:31:05 AM »
That is not a straw man. They are saying that in the absence of a defense for Bendy Light, it is difficult to take its validity seriously.  Since Bendy Light is the only theory with a hope of explaining why the sun disappears from the bottom up, it is difficult to take the FE hypothesis seriously without it.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2013, 12:04:58 PM »
Actually, I don't think it even explains that. I think bendy light would actually cause the sun to superimpose over the ground at sunset in the same manner as a mirage, and not actually be obscured by it.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2013, 12:10:35 PM »
Actually, I don't think it even explains that. I think bendy light would actually cause the sun to superimpose over the ground at sunset in the same manner as a mirage, and not actually be obscured by it.
Right. "Bendy Light" does not make sense, outside of the observable rules of refraction.

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2013, 12:33:35 PM »
Actually, I don't think it even explains that. I think bendy light would actually cause the sun to superimpose over the ground at sunset in the same manner as a mirage, and not actually be obscured by it.
Right. "Bendy Light" does not make sense, outside of the observable rules of refraction.
Then please explain how perspective effects can account for the difference between the actual and observed angles of the sun, both from the horizon and north-south, as described by Scintific Method in this thread. He has posted several times with actual calculations and numbers describing the difference between where people all over the earth see the sun, and where it should be according to FET.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2013, 01:20:21 PM »
Actually, I don't think it even explains that. I think bendy light would actually cause the sun to superimpose over the ground at sunset in the same manner as a mirage, and not actually be obscured by it.
Right. "Bendy Light" does not make sense, outside of the observable rules of refraction.

The bendy light theory is -not- refraction.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2013, 04:39:29 AM »
Actually, I don't think it even explains that. I think bendy light would actually cause the sun to superimpose over the ground at sunset in the same manner as a mirage, and not actually be obscured by it.
Right. "Bendy Light" does not make sense, outside of the observable rules of refraction.

The bendy light theory is -not- refraction.

Exactly. Refraction is observable, measurable, predictable, repeatable, and easily explained. Bendy light, on the other hand, is none of these things.

For the pedants:
observable: by this I mean we can see the difference between refracted and un-refracted light
measurable: by comparing refracted and un-refracted light, we can measure how much it has been refracted
predictable: mirages are known to occur where there is a steep vertical temperature gradient, and light can be deliberately refracted using lenses
repeatable: as mentioned, light can be deliberately refracted with lenses, mirages can also be created artificially by heating or cooling a surface and looking over it
easily explained: we know it relates to the density of a medium, that denser mediums slow light down, and that this difference in speed causes the light to refract.

Muggsy, are you seriously telling us you have never seen a mirage? I know you have used a telescope, so you have definitely made use of the predictability and reproducibility of refraction.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2013, 05:43:46 AM »
Muggsy, are you seriously telling us you have never seen a mirage? I know you have used a telescope, so you have definitely made use of the predictability and reproducibility of refraction.
As I said. Refraction makes sense. "Bendy-Light" does not.