Electromagnetic Accelerator

  • 201 Replies
  • 29153 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: August 07, 2008, 06:27:46 AM »
I came up with an idea on the new FES, that I thought of posting here because most of the serious discussion seems to happen on here.

Basically, I considered a second UA, one that passes through solid objects (so that we are not shielded from it by the Earth), but that only affects electromagnetic radiation. This "Electromagnetic Accelerator" (EA) would cause significantly greater acceleration than the UA does, such that light accelerates upwards relative to the surface of the Earth. This would explain a couple of phenomena:

Day/night

When the sun is too far away, all its rays are bent upwards in a parabolic arc before they reach us.

Horizon

Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it. Also, this allows for an extremely high Greater Ice Wall to keep the atmosphere in, while remaining invisible.


This idea is still fairly fresh in my head, and it is based upon an idea someone else came up with (I don't remember who), stating that light from the sun is bent upwards - though for a different reason, I don't remember the specifics. Undoubtedly this hypothesis will gain more detail as I consider it further, I just thought I might post it here for your consideration too.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 17149
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2008, 06:37:53 AM »
Ok, you have a new theory.  How are you going to test it? 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2008, 06:39:23 AM »
Awezome!

So light traveling parallel to the earth is bent up slighty, but light coming vertically down from the Sun does a U-turn?

That's quite a handy bit of magic.

Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2008, 06:42:38 AM »
Once the light from the sun penetrates Earth's atmosphere, is it shieded from this EA or is it still succeptible to it? If it is not shielded then this might cause a problem with communication using EM waves (radio, tv etc).

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2008, 06:53:59 AM »
Ok, you have a new theory.  How are you going to test it? 

I'll figure that out after I polish it up a bit more.

Once the light from the sun penetrates Earth's atmosphere, is it shieded from this EA or is it still succeptible to it? If it is not shielded then this might cause a problem with communication using EM waves (radio, tv etc).

All electromagnetic radiation is susceptible to it, regardless of where in the Universe it is. It doesn't cause any more of a problem than the Earth's surface curving away from the straight line path light takes in the RE model does. While it causes a significant rate of acceleration, the exceptionally high speed of light means that the curvature is actually a very slight effect, only noticeable over distances of tens of kilometres - much like that caused by the curvature of the Earth in RET.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2008, 06:57:50 AM »
Robosteve, you have my applause for this. I'm really interested to see how this stands up to scrutiny, but it sounds good!


=)
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2008, 06:59:05 AM »
Quote
Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.

Just a thought.  Wouldn't Rowbotham's experiments be affected too?  He would see things 6 miles distant 'sunk' into the horizon.  It would appear as if the earth was round!
Mars or Bust

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2008, 07:02:41 AM »
Just a thought.  Wouldn't Rowbotham's experiments be affected too?  He would see things 6 miles distant 'sunk' into the horizon.  It would appear as if the earth was round!

They would. I will confess to not having read Earth Not A Globe, and will refrain from further comment on this matter until I have done so.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2008, 07:19:45 AM »
Quote
Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.

Just a thought.  Wouldn't Rowbotham's experiments be affected too?  He would see things 6 miles distant 'sunk' into the horizon.  It would appear as if the earth was round!

You should note that some FE'ers do not regard ENAG as definitive. I certainly think there are major issues with the book.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2008, 07:21:05 AM »
Quote
Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.

Just a thought.  Wouldn't Rowbotham's experiments be affected too?  He would see things 6 miles distant 'sunk' into the horizon.  It would appear as if the earth was round!

You should note that some FE'ers do not regard ENAG as definitive. I certainly think there are major issues with the book.

I agree.  But then, what would those FE'ers use as experimental evidence for a flat earth?
Mars or Bust

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2008, 07:36:45 AM »
I will confess to not being totally familiar with his experiments; it is a long time since I read the book. What inconsistencies would arise?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2008, 08:02:35 AM »
Quote
I will confess to not being totally familiar with his experiments; it is a long time since I read the book.

That's a shame, for an FE'er.

Quote
What inconsistencies would arise?

I've always thought his Bedford level experiments, the centerpiece of any FE evidence I would think, were prone to refraction.  I'm actually planning to perform one of his experiments this weekend.  You can read about it in the 'Conducting Rowbotham Experiment' thread.

Other than that I've always found a lot of problems with the book.  For example, he says a cannon ball thrown straight upwards on a moving ship will stop at the top of its trajectory and fall backwards into the ocean, which is obviously ludicrous.

I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?
Mars or Bust

*

sokarul

  • 17149
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2008, 08:16:31 AM »
Quote
I will confess to not being totally familiar with his experiments; it is a long time since I read the book.

That's a shame, for an FE'er.

Quote
What inconsistencies would arise?

I've always thought his Bedford level experiments, the centerpiece of any FE evidence I would think, were prone to refraction.  I'm actually planning to perform one of his experiments this weekend.  You can read about it in the 'Conducting Rowbotham Experiment' thread.

Other than that I've always found a lot of problems with the book.  For example, he says a cannon ball thrown straight upwards on a moving ship will stop at the top of its trajectory and fall backwards into the ocean, which is obviously ludicrous.

I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?

Yeah, fe'ers hate optics. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2008, 08:18:48 AM »
I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?

I usually use the most obvious- how does it look? Believing in something I cannot observe is a big issue for me.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39376
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2008, 08:35:08 AM »
I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?

I usually use the most obvious- how does it look? Believing in something I cannot observe is a big issue for me.

So if it looks like magician Criss Angel is levitating, then he really is levitating?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2008, 09:02:28 AM »
I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?

I usually use the most obvious- how does it look? Believing in something I cannot observe is a big issue for me.

I on the other hand judge a theory solely by its predictive power and fit to experimental evidence.  The theory that does this best wins, hands down.  I don't care how many unobservables there are, how convoluted and non-intuitive it is, or how it seems to defy our every perception of reality.  If experiment verifies its predictions time and time again, it is the superior theory, worthy of being believed.  Only if two theories appear to predict phenomena equally well, then one must apply Occam's Razor and choose the theory that appears simplest  with fewest unobservables.

A good example of this is quantum mechanics.  It makes no sense at all and is filled with all kinds of unobservables, but experiment has yet to find a time when it has failed.

I'm sure many FE'ers will debate RE's predictive power, but I have not yet been convinced that it has failed.  On the other hand, FE, IMO, seems to offer little predictive power over RE.  The Rowbotham experiments seem to be a contradiction to this.  That is why I am attempting them myself.
Mars or Bust

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2008, 09:15:34 AM »
I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?

I usually use the most obvious- how does it look? Believing in something I cannot observe is a big issue for me.

So if it looks like magician Criss Angel is levitating, then he really is levitating?

I would not rule out any options. The may be round; I simply think it more probable that it is flat, because no-one has yet proven to me that it isn't. I think it would be far easier to prove that this man is not levitating, as to do so, he would have to defy the laws of the UA.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39376
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2008, 09:38:26 AM »
I think it would be far easier to prove that this man is not levitating, as to do so, he would have to defy the laws of the UA.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Has anyone defined these laws of the UA?  Has it been determined what materials interact with the UA and to what degree? 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2008, 10:26:02 AM »
I think it would be far easier to prove that this man is not levitating, as to do so, he would have to defy the laws of the UA.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Has anyone defined these laws of the UA?  Has it been determined what materials interact with the UA and to what degree? 

But for the purposes of your example, the laws of the UA have been explained all over this site. You know exactly why he could not levitate with respect to the UA.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

sokarul

  • 17149
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2008, 11:03:43 AM »
I think it would be far easier to prove that this man is not levitating, as to do so, he would have to defy the laws of the UA.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Has anyone defined these laws of the UA?  Has it been determined what materials interact with the UA and to what degree? 

But for the purposes of your example, the laws of the UA have been explained all over this site. You know exactly why he could not levitate with respect to the UA.
Magic is the only "law" that applies to the UA.  Its also self aware, it pick and chooses which objects it wants to accelerate. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 11:06:22 AM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2008, 11:13:49 AM »
Magic is the only "law" that applies to the UA.
Over 3k posts and you're still as noobish as any other RE'er that signs up for the first time and posts his/her first thread. Pity.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2008, 11:18:16 AM »
More of sokarul's magic dirt and bullshit picking and choosing.

Over 3k posts and you're still as noobish as any other RE'er that signs up for the first time and posts his/her first thread. Pity.

QFT. It's quite an astounding feat that he has pulled off. Perhaps a round of applause is in order.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

sokarul

  • 17149
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2008, 12:32:40 PM »
More of sokarul's magic dirt and bullshit picking and choosing.

Over 3k posts and you're still as noobish as any other RE'er that signs up for the first time and posts his/her first thread. Pity.

QFT. It's quite an astounding feat that he has pulled off. Perhaps a round of applause is in order.

It's not my fault that no one can explain why the UA doesn't accelerate every object.  You tired, I owned you, then you left the thread.   
Magic dirt came from people claiming there was dirt that did not have gravitation. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39376
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2008, 12:33:26 PM »
I think it would be far easier to prove that this man is not levitating, as to do so, he would have to defy the laws of the UA.

Now we're getting somewhere.  Has anyone defined these laws of the UA?  Has it been determined what materials interact with the UA and to what degree? 

But for the purposes of your example, the laws of the UA have been explained all over this site. You know exactly why he could not levitate with respect to the UA.

Then again, he isn't supposed to be able to levitate according to the laws of RE gravity (gravitation) either.

Actually, the Criss Angel example wasn't intended to be a part of a UA vs gravity debate.  Rather, it was intended to counter your "seeing is believing" comment that you made a little earlier.

I brought up the topic of the laws of the UA more as a tangent.  I believe that FE needs to be able to properly describe the characteristics of the UA before there can be a useful debate as to whether it is a more useful tool in describing the workings of the FE than gravity (gravitation).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2008, 09:07:42 PM »
It's not my fault that no one can explain why the UA doesn't accelerate every object.
It's your fault that you can't understand the answer.  Perhaps you should spend a little more time studying and less time on the internet.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

mxmm

  • 136
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2008, 09:26:56 PM »
I'll just ask you this.  What evidence do you use to back up FE when somebody asks you?

I usually use the most obvious- how does it look? Believing in something I cannot observe is a big issue for me.

So if it looks like magician Criss Angel is levitating, then he really is levitating?

The may be round; I simply think it more probable that it is flat, because no-one has yet proven to me that it isn't.

Except I did: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21880.0

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2008, 02:07:04 AM »
It's not my fault that no one can explain why the UA doesn't accelerate every object.

I already explained it to you. You think we should all be floating above the Earth for some dumb reason. Dark Energy doesn't exist in Earth's atmosphere and is not able to accelerate us; why you can't understand something so simple is a special gift you have.

Magic dirt came from people claiming there was dirt that did not have gravitation. 

Magic dirt came from your brain. It's just as good as the other bullshit you pull out of your ass. Actually, now that I think about it, your suggestions are almost as retarded as Eric's were.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2008, 02:21:17 AM »
The may be round; I simply think it more probable that it is flat, because no-one has yet proven to me that it isn't.

Except I did: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21880.0

This may be a gap in FE theory. If I show you a gap in RET theory, will I have proven the earth isn't round? Bear in mind that there are many gaps in RET; this is acknowledged by globularist scientists all the time.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2008, 06:02:30 AM »
I hereby propose that the Electromagnetic Accelerator causes all electromagnetic radiation in the Universe (except that travelling parallel to it, which must maintain a constant speed) to accelerate at a rate of 33.4 m s-2 in the same direction that the UA operates; that is, up.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2008, 06:09:15 AM by Robosteve »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12095
Re: Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2008, 06:04:19 AM »
Interesting. I'm not as strong on myscienc as some people here; can you elaborate for me?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord