Perspective vs. Bendy Light

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.

Much like the Earth, a conversation is not a linear entity. To get the most out of an idea one must necessarily explore separate aspects of an idea. Which in turn may lead elsewhere temporarily, or indeed find a more pertinent question. I would say a post that stays strictly on topic is either a statement of the obvious or something of so little value that its not worth exploring. Of course, unless something of more value is found, ultimately each sub-thread should be brought to a conclusion an related back to the OP.

Look, believe it or not I'm aware of that, but there needs to be a balance. An argument about how we should refer to BL is not constructive. If you have a problem with moderation, take it to S&C, because otherwise you're just making further off-topic posts.

I have concluded that an FE is impossible without EA. Plenty of simple tests can otherwise disprove a flat earth.

Such as firing neutrinos into the ground and detecting them in Japan.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 07, 2010, 09:49:29 AM

I have concluded that an FE is impossible without EA. Plenty of simple tests can otherwise disprove a flat earth.

Such as firing neutrinos into the ground and detecting them in Japan.

I am pretty sure EA has nothing to do with neutrinos, since they are not charged.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 07, 2010, 11:48:08 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 07, 2010, 09:49:29 AM

I have concluded that an FE is impossible without EA. Plenty of simple tests can otherwise disprove a flat earth.

Such as firing neutrinos into the ground and detecting them in Japan.

I am pretty sure EA has nothing to do with neutrinos, since they are not charged.

I agree, I was referring to Eddy's mention of tests that can disprove a flat earth. That's one of them, according to my signature which is a quote from you.

Quote from: ERTW on February 07, 2010, 01:54:51 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 07, 2010, 11:48:08 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 07, 2010, 09:49:29 AM

I have concluded that an FE is impossible without EA. Plenty of simple tests can otherwise disprove a flat earth.

Such as firing neutrinos into the ground and detecting them in Japan.

I am pretty sure EA has nothing to do with neutrinos, since they are not charged.

I agree, I was referring to Eddy's mention of tests that can disprove a flat earth. That's one of them, according to my signature which is a quote from you.

Indeed. I think I should also add to this discussion the fact that the bendy light theory disagrees with Rowbotham's interpretation of the Bedford Level Experiment, hence Tom should really be here arguing against EA.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 07, 2010, 04:32:09 PM

Quote from: ERTW on February 07, 2010, 01:54:51 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on February 07, 2010, 11:48:08 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 07, 2010, 09:49:29 AM

I have concluded that an FE is impossible without EA. Plenty of simple tests can otherwise disprove a flat earth.

Such as firing neutrinos into the ground and detecting them in Japan.

I am pretty sure EA has nothing to do with neutrinos, since they are not charged.

I agree, I was referring to Eddy's mention of tests that can disprove a flat earth. That's one of them, according to my signature which is a quote from you.

Indeed. I think I should also add to this discussion the fact that the bendy light theory disagrees with Rowbotham's interpretation of the Bedford Level Experiment, hence Tom should really be here arguing against EA.

Well, Tom is trying to keep EA out of the FAQ.

I'm fairly certain perspective can be disproved with a spirit level and a fairly powerful laser.

LAZORZ are light and so are apparently affected by bendy light.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 08, 2010, 12:18:32 AM

I'm fairly certain perspective can be disproved with a spirit level and a fairly powerful laser.

LAZORZ are light and so are apparently affected by bendy light.

Yes, but BLT and the perspective theory are not one and the same thing.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 09, 2010, 12:17:38 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 08, 2010, 12:18:32 AM

I'm fairly certain perspective can be disproved with a spirit level and a fairly powerful laser.

LAZORZ are light and so are apparently affected by bendy light.

Yes, but BLT and the perspective theory are not one and the same thing.

Perhaps not, but still equally ludicrous. Even the FE name for BLT is.  Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit. Maybe a more precise derivation is needed?

One question.....Since a flat earth is obviously bigger than 3000 miles, and the perspective effect obviously occurs at some distance much smaller than that, then shouldnt the sun be invisible at all times if it were only 3000 miles away?

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 09, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 09, 2010, 05:24:15 AM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 09, 2010, 12:17:38 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 08, 2010, 12:18:32 AM

I'm fairly certain perspective can be disproved with a spirit level and a fairly powerful laser.

LAZORZ are light and so are apparently affected by bendy light.

Yes, but BLT and the perspective theory are not one and the same thing.

Perhaps not, but still equally ludicrous. Even the FE name for BLT is.  Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit. Maybe a more precise derivation is needed?

If something changes direction, it changes velocity and therefore accelerates.

So the waves are constantly accelerating?

Quote from: Its a Sphere on February 09, 2010, 11:48:25 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 09, 2010, 11:15:12 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 09, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 09, 2010, 05:24:15 AM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 09, 2010, 12:17:38 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on February 08, 2010, 12:18:32 AM

I'm fairly certain perspective can be disproved with a spirit level and a fairly powerful laser.

LAZORZ are light and so are apparently affected by bendy light.

Yes, but BLT and the perspective theory are not one and the same thing.

Perhaps not, but still equally ludicrous. Even the FE name for BLT is.  Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit. Maybe a more precise derivation is needed?

If something changes direction, it changes velocity and therefore accelerates.

So the waves are constantly accelerating?

...Yes?

You seem unsure.

Because you seem to be applying kinematic acceleration to a wave as it is changing direction, which it also does as it oscillates.

Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit.

Ignorance at its finest.

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 09, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit.

Ignorance at its finest.

It's not ignorance if you've never had it explained to you.

@EireEngineer - it's linear speed isn't changing but it's direction is. Therefore it is accelerating. Just like a satellite in orbit - it stays at the same speed but it is constantly accelerating toward earth in a free fall, only to find that the earth curves away and it continues to fall towards earth again. (I use RE terms because I feel they are correct)

Quote from: parsec on February 09, 2010, 07:04:07 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 09, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit.

Ignorance at its finest.

It's not ignorance if you've never had it explained to you.

@EireEngineer - it's linear speed isn't changing but it's direction is. Therefore it is accelerating. Just like a satellite in orbit - it stays at the same speed but it is constantly accelerating toward earth in a free fall, only to find that the earth curves away and it continues to fall towards earth again. (I use RE terms because I feel they are correct)

no. we've been through this already. there's no such thing as acceleration for waves.

You sir, are now the ignorant one. A photon is an object, therefore if it changes direction, it accelerates.

You sir, are now the ignorant one. A photon is an object, therefore if it changes direction, it accelerates.

please tell me how i can measure the velocity of the photon and its position at the same time?

I have no idea how. I'm not a physicist. Just because something can't be measured, doesn't mean it isn't happening though. But if bendy light does infact exist, then the photons must be moving to a different place mustn't they?

I have no idea how.

Thanks for contributing to the debate.

Thanks for pulling a quote out of context. I feel the rest of my comment fully justified what I had to say. What is your reasoning for light not being able to accelerate then, smarty-pants? Are you going to just insult people, or also contribute to the debate?

i will answer your question after you supply a method for measuring light's acceleration.

In all actuality, there is none. Light doesn't accelerate anyway. It doesn't change direction because it feels like it when it enters atmosphere. Put simply, light travels straight.

In all actuality, there is none. Light doesn't accelerate anyway. It doesn't change direction because it feels like it when it enters atmosphere. Put simply, light travels straight.

so, even no acceleration means zero acceleration. that is a perfectly measurable quantity. how can you measure your prediction?

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 09, 2010, 08:19:32 PM

In all actuality, there is none. Light doesn't accelerate anyway. It doesn't change direction because it feels like it when it enters atmosphere. Put simply, light travels straight.

so, even no acceleration means zero acceleration. that is a perfectly measurable quantity. how can you measure your prediction?

In all honesty, I can't. I'll give you that. But driving people out of a debate isn't the way to win. I just makes you look like a cock. I don't have any experience in measuring the speed of light at all. But I know my physics teacher didn't lie to me all the times he told me light travels straight. That's HOW he got his PHD. I've finished school now so I don't really have a way of contacting him but it would be good if I could refer him to this site and see what he thinks of your theories on light. He could probably blow your entire FET out of the water with one word.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that light will accelerate when it passes through a new medium, but even inside the medium it travels straight. Nothing causes light to 'bend'

Quote from: parsec on February 09, 2010, 08:20:52 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 09, 2010, 08:19:32 PM

In all actuality, there is none. Light doesn't accelerate anyway. It doesn't change direction because it feels like it when it enters atmosphere. Put simply, light travels straight.

so, even no acceleration means zero acceleration. that is a perfectly measurable quantity. how can you measure your prediction?

In all honesty, I can't. I'll give you that. But driving people out of a debate isn't the way to win. I just makes you look like a cock. I don't have any experience in measuring the speed of light at all. But I know my physics teacher didn't lie to me all the times he told me light travels straight. That's HOW he got his PHD. I've finished school now so I don't really have a way of contacting him but it would be good if I could refer him to this site and see what he thinks of your theories on light. He could probably blow your entire FET out of the water with one word.

And yes, I am perfectly aware that light will accelerate when it passes through a new medium, but even inside the medium it travels straight. Nothing causes light to 'bend'

What if there is no sharp boundary between two media, but the optical properties gradually change from point to point?

Air molecules and absence of air are not a gradual change in optical density. It is a reversal and re-reversal. If the atmosphere were a sandwich of different materials, I might see reason to look into your theory.

Physical density of an object != optical density. The atmosphere bends light as one medium, not a series of small ones.

The atmosphere bends light as one medium, not a series of small ones.

ORLY?

lol, hot air + cold air = mirage.

High air + low air != same bend.

Quote from: EireEngineer on February 09, 2010, 05:49:44 AM

Electromagnetic waves cannot accelerate, because they are already traveling at the cosmological speed limit.

Ignorance at its finest.

Care to say how? No? Then STFU.