Perspective vs. Bendy Light

  • 85 Replies
  • 22500 Views
?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« on: January 29, 2010, 06:20:39 PM »
I have seen both of these ideas proposed on here as explanations for objects, including the Sun, appearing to sink below the horizon.  Of the two, to Parsifal's credit, I find bendy light far, far, far more plausible, as it actually asserts an alternative behavior for light.  

Perspective seems to assert that no matter how bright an object is (and the Sun is quite bright), it will eventually simply vanish out of sight at a certain distance, due to human sight limitation.  This doesn't jive with the behavior of light as we understand it.  As an object gets farther and farther away, its angular size will just get smaller and smaller until its structure can no longer be resolved and it will appear as a point source.  As I've alluded to in other threads, light is simply oscillating electric and magnetic fields, which propagate in a certain direction at approximately 3 x 10^8 m/s.  If a photon leaves a certain object, whether emitted or reflected by that object, that photon will continue to propagate until it interacts with matter or is reflected again.  If light reflects off of a distant ship, that light will continue travel until it hits my eye and interacts with the photo-receptors on my retina.  The photon isn't going to magically disappear because of perspective.  If the Earth were indeed flat, the ship would just get smaller and smaller and smaller until it just becomes a tiny black dot.  Its hull isn't going to start sinking below the horizon.

I propose this thread as a debate of merit between these two explanations.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 07:00:00 PM by cwolfe »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2010, 06:34:01 AM »
Neither has any merit as neither has any evidence for light behaving like that. They are both conclusions drawn from an assumption, and without that assumption (the shape of the earth) they are undetectable.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5421
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2010, 06:47:21 AM »
Seriously, is 'bendy' light the best scientific name you guys could come up with?

Who was first to reference that name?
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2010, 06:58:38 AM »
Seriously, is 'bendy' light the best scientific name you guys could come up with?

Who was first to reference that name?

REers coined it while mocking the idea. It has become the most commonly used colloquial expression for the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5421
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2010, 07:05:04 AM »
Seriously, is 'bendy' light the best scientific name you guys could come up with?

Who was first to reference that name?

REers coined it while mocking the idea. It has become the most commonly used colloquial expression for the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory.

Funny, I just read that in the faq, again. Thanks all the same.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2010, 11:31:09 AM »
There's no real evidence for either idea, including bendy light, as light has never been observed to bend except in the presence of a massive (the sun is barely massive enough to bend light only a little) object, consistent with Einstein's predictions in his theory of general relativity.  However, at least "bendy light" asserts a different behavior for light paths.  This is my point, and this is why I find bendy light to be the less ridiculous of the two.  Perspective essentially assumes that light just disappears after a certain distance.

REers coined it while mocking the idea. It has become the most commonly used colloquial expression for the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory.

If you are trying to make yourself out to be a scientist, you may want to refrain from calling your hypothesis a "theory" until it has been sufficiently demonstrated in a laboratory setting.


I don't however want this to be a discussion of the bendy light idea only... There are already two threads for this.  I would like some of the people here who subscribe to the idea of "perspective" to defend their position as well.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 11:34:58 AM by cwolfe »

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2010, 11:35:45 AM »
But electromagnetic acceleration theory (EAT) or bendy light theory (BLT) sound much yummier than electromagnetic acceleration hypothesis (EAH) or bendy light hypothesis (BLH).
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2010, 11:42:22 AM »
But calling it a theory is incorrect, as the hypothesis hasn't been tested and verified by the scientific community at large.  If Parsifal wants his ideas to gain merit, he must find a way to publish his predictions in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and if they are found to be in agreement with observed reality, his hypothesis can eventually be called a "theory".

In essence, becoming a theory is as close to truth as can be achieved in science.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2010, 12:10:32 PM »
But calling it a theory is incorrect, as the hypothesis hasn't been tested and verified by the scientific community at large.  If Parsifal wants his ideas to gain merit, he must find a way to publish his predictions in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and if they are found to be in agreement with observed reality, his hypothesis can eventually be called a "theory".

In essence, becoming a theory is as close to truth as can be achieved in science.

Let us all call it Electromagnetic Acceleration Hypothesis (or EAH) from now on then.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2010, 12:16:37 PM »
or just EA would work too.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2010, 12:38:39 PM »
or just EA would work too.

EA makes it sound as if it is an accepted force, much like we say "Gravity" instead of "Theory of Gravity".

EA is still a hypothesis, so I believe we should call it as such.

EAH

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2010, 12:44:30 PM »
The term "theory" is also used synonymously with hypothesis put forward to explain a class of phenomena.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2010, 01:07:02 PM »
The term "theory" is also used synonymously with hypothesis put forward to explain a class of phenomena.

But calling it a theory is incorrect, as the hypothesis hasn't been tested and verified by the scientific community at large.  If Parsifal wants his ideas to gain merit, he must find a way to publish his predictions in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and if they are found to be in agreement with observed reality, his hypothesis can eventually be called a "theory".

In essence, becoming a theory is as close to truth as can be achieved in science.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2010, 01:07:36 PM »
The term "theory" is also used synonymously with hypothesis put forward to explain a class of phenomena.

That's the layman's definition of "theory", in which "theory" and "hypothesis" are synonyms.  In a proper scientific context, the word carries a lot more weight.

Let's not de-rail the thread with semantics.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2010, 01:08:06 PM »
He did. We are his peers.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2010, 01:19:31 PM »
And what scientific journal are you on the review committee for?

I can gather a group of people together to "peer review" any idea I want.  It doesn't mean that my idea has any credence.  If you want an idea to gain acceptance, you have to have the idea critically evaluated by the experts in the field.  In this case, it would be optics.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2010, 01:21:16 PM »
And what scientific journal are you on the review committee for?

I can gather a group of people together to "peer review" any idea I want.  It doesn't mean that my idea has any credence.  If you want an idea to gain acceptance, you have to have the idea critically evaluated by the experts in the field.  In this case, it would be optics.
Currently, we're the only experts on BLT. So, that makes us credible enough.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2010, 01:24:14 PM »
And what scientific journal are you on the review committee for?

I can gather a group of people together to "peer review" any idea I want.  It doesn't mean that my idea has any credence.  If you want an idea to gain acceptance, you have to have the idea critically evaluated by the experts in the field.  In this case, it would be optics.
Currently, we're the only experts on BLT. So, that makes us credible enough.

Are you the only experts on optics and optical phenomena?  If not, you're not credible enough.  If so, you might want to have a conversation with some of the professors in my department... they'd probably have much to learn from you.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2010, 01:38:30 PM »
And what scientific journal are you on the review committee for?

I can gather a group of people together to "peer review" any idea I want.  It doesn't mean that my idea has any credence.  If you want an idea to gain acceptance, you have to have the idea critically evaluated by the experts in the field.  In this case, it would be optics.
Currently, we're the only experts on BLT. So, that makes us credible enough.

Sounds a bit circular to me.
"We created BLT, and it has been peer reviewed by us. This at the same time makes us and it creditable."

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2010, 01:43:08 PM »
And what scientific journal are you on the review committee for?

I can gather a group of people together to "peer review" any idea I want.  It doesn't mean that my idea has any credence.  If you want an idea to gain acceptance, you have to have the idea critically evaluated by the experts in the field.  In this case, it would be optics.
Currently, we're the only experts on BLT. So, that makes us credible enough.

Sounds a bit circular to me.
"We created BLT, and it has been peer reviewed by us. This at the same time makes us and it creditable."
No, it's not circular. You asked who evaluated Parsifal's theory? I replied some other people on FES, under the collective name 'we'. It's not the same person.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2010, 01:47:30 PM »
But your little microcosm of people who believe that the Earth is flat (or at least enjoy playing devil's advocate for the fun of it) do not represent the community of optical physicists at large.  You're not qualified as a group to speak for the truth or falsehood of an idea which has far-reaching implications on the field of optics.  In addition, how many of you have actually performed optics research or even taken a graduate-level course in electromagnetism?  The percentage of you who are actually familiar with optics is probably fairly small.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2010, 01:49:17 PM »
Are you talking from personal experience?

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2010, 01:53:42 PM »
Are you talking from personal experience?

What are you referring to?

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2010, 01:54:22 PM »
your previous post.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2010, 01:57:16 PM »
What aspect?  I work with professors who have published dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals (I hope to have a paper of my own published soon based on my graduate work), and thus understand the rigors of peer review.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2010, 01:59:23 PM »
Ok, go measure your sci-penis somewhere else.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2010, 02:07:40 PM »
Nice.

Now then, can we get back to the debate at hand?  I have to go now, but it would be nice if one of the perspective guys would weigh in here.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2010, 02:24:41 PM »
The only perspective effect believers as far as I know are Bishop and James, both of whom are as mad as a bag of squirrels.

If they did join in this debate, since both of them use the "I'm right, you're wrong, that's the end of it" debating style, they will have little to contribute. Bishop will post endless links to the fiction in the Wiki and tell you to Read Earth Not A Globe (following which I will scream and puke). James will claim a vast weight of documented evidence, none of which he will provide links to.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 02:27:17 PM by Thermal Detonator »
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2010, 04:08:45 PM »
Regarding the little semantic quibble over the word 'theory', please remember that Flat Earth Debate is a strictly on-topic board. All further posts are to directly concern the relative merits of EAT and the perspective theory. These are the accepted names for these concepts, so if you want to argue about that, do so elsewhere.


Personally, I am of the opinion that given a flat Earth (which I'm taking as given for the purposes of this topic; if you want to argue that point, again, do so elsewhere), it's clear to me that light must 'bend' or be affected in some way to produce the phenomona we observe. My main problem with perspective theory is that there are so many factors supposedly at work, all of which seem quite variable, yet the similar predictable and consistent results are produced day in, day out, wherever you are on Earth.


Of course, I'm always willing to consider different ideas, but the 'perspective' theories never really convinced me. I know John Davis believes that light bends, and I'd love to see his take on the whole thing.
"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

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Perspective vs. Bendy Light
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2010, 07:57:40 AM »
The only perspective effect believers as far as I know are Bishop and James, both of whom are as mad as a bag of squirrels.

If they did join in this debate, since both of them use the "I'm right, you're wrong, that's the end of it" debating style, they will have little to contribute. Bishop will post endless links to the fiction in the Wiki and tell you to Read Earth Not A Globe (following which I will scream and puke). James will claim a vast weight of documented evidence, none of which he will provide links to.

Really?  I thought there were more than just those two.  I didn't know the idea of bendy light had become so popular here.  Oh well, I suppose this thread is doomed to fail then.

Regarding the little semantic quibble over the word 'theory', please remember that Flat Earth Debate is a strictly on-topic board. All further posts are to directly concern the relative merits of EAT and the perspective theory. These are the accepted names for these concepts, so if you want to argue about that, do so elsewhere.


Personally, I am of the opinion that given a flat Earth (which I'm taking as given for the purposes of this topic; if you want to argue that point, again, do so elsewhere), it's clear to me that light must 'bend' or be affected in some way to produce the phenomona we observe. My main problem with perspective theory is that there are so many factors supposedly at work, all of which seem quite variable, yet the similar predictable and consistent results are produced day in, day out, wherever you are on Earth.


Of course, I'm always willing to consider different ideas, but the 'perspective' theories never really convinced me. I know John Davis believes that light bends, and I'd love to see his take on the whole thing.

Sorry for that... I do appreciate your effort to keep the thread on topic.  And I agree with you, if the Earth is flat (which we will assume is true for the purposes of this thread) then light HAS to bend.  There's no way perspective can correctly explain sunsets, the horizon, etc.