Poll

Do you believe Rowbotham proved the earth is flat with his Bedford Level experiment, or do you believe light bends to create the illusion of a horizon?

Rowbotham proved earth is flat. There was no illusion.
5 (26.3%)
Light bends to create the illusion of a horizon.
14 (73.7%)

Total Members Voted: 19

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down

Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

  • 184 Replies
  • 37335 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #90 on: July 02, 2009, 12:07:38 PM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 10:58:49 AM
If my calculations are correct, if the mirrors are 2 meters tall, you would need to measure the top and bottom accurate within 0.056 meters (5.6 cm) for the resulting laser beam to be accurate within 1 meter after traveling 1600 meters. This should be acceptable.

What are you going to use to measure it? You can't use light, because we are testing whether light travels straight or not and if it doesn't then it will invalidate the measurements, and you can't use the surface of the Earth because a flat surface is required and we can't assume the Earth to be any particular shape in this experiment.

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 10:58:49 AM
Well, you're trying to explain how the observations of the earth's curvature in RET can be an illusion. Are you also claiming that RET's observed curvature is not consistent with it's radius? What height increase would you expect for a laser travelling 1600 meters?

I would think it would have to approximate the RE prediction in order for existing data to make sense. I'll get back to you on more precise figures when the theory is complete.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

cdenley

  • 296
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #91 on: July 02, 2009, 12:18:12 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 12:07:38 PM
What are you going to use to measure it? You can't use light, because we are testing whether light travels straight or not and if it doesn't then it will invalidate the measurements, and you can't use the surface of the Earth because a flat surface is required and we can't assume the Earth to be any particular shape in this experiment.
How about a tape measure?
http://www.amazon.com/Tape-Measure-330-Meters-Metric/dp/B0002K02WE
It should allow you to measure 50 meters within 5.6 cm accuracy.
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #92 on: July 02, 2009, 12:20:49 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 12:04:35 PM
You are not even using proper units for curvature. A bend of 1 ?m makes no sense; curvature is measured in units of inverse distance. How can you expect me to believe you know what you are talking about when you can't even get your units right?

Sorry I meant a deviation of 1um from straight over 1 meter (defining a bend over a set distance) and no it shouldn't be in inverse units of measurement (not distance) as I am not talking about a nonsense figure (inverse measurements would simply equate to very small numbers 1/X) but a deviation from straight.

I assume what you meant was using trigonometry to define a curve of which I was not doing, this just prooves you have no idea what you are talking about. Even in simple maths.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #93 on: July 02, 2009, 01:18:20 PM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 12:18:12 PM
How about a tape measure?
http://www.amazon.com/Tape-Measure-330-Meters-Metric/dp/B0002K02WE
It should allow you to measure 50 meters within 5.6 cm accuracy.

How are you going to ensure the tape is perfectly straight over a length of 50 metres?

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 12:20:49 PM
Sorry I meant a deviation of 1um from straight over 1 meter (defining a bend over a set distance) and no it shouldn't be in inverse units of measurement (not distance) as I am not talking about a nonsense figure (inverse measurements would simply equate to very small numbers 1/X) but a deviation from straight.

First of all, the very slight curvature over short distances would still allow total internal reflection to take place. And second of all, why are inverse measurements necessarily very small numbers?

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 12:20:49 PM
I assume what you meant was using trigonometry to define a curve of which I was not doing, this just prooves you have no idea what you are talking about. Even in simple maths.

No; the direction light is travelling in a two-dimensional plane corresponds to dy/dx in an arbitrary co-ordinate system. If we allow our co-ordinate system to vary such that dy/dx is always 0, we may express the curvature as d2y/dx2, which has units of inverse distance.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #94 on: July 02, 2009, 01:29:22 PM »
Warning Low content portion of this post:
The best part of this thread is that if anyone disagrees or makes a mistake it immediately translates to how they are an idiot and don't have a clue what they are talking about. It's magical to read and completely does not serve the purpose of the OP.

Back on topic now:
Rowbotham vs. bendy light (EA)
Rowbotham was a joke, who was alone in the scientific community of his day, and his tests, observations, and predictions are even further out on the fringe of plausibility today. So to answer the poll Bendy light (EA) is the only plausible choice.

The last page-ish of posts have been about devising a test for Bendy light (EA). Since EA theory (that?s funny it can be shortened to EAT) is still in its infancy and is currently under development I think a simple test can be made that takes into account both FE and RE ideas. Three tests, all side by side to get some good hard data.
Equipment and location: A laser or sufficient light emitting device for long distance (several miles) detecting. We would need some simple surveying gear, including a very precise level and a couple Theodolites. Also a serried of precisely made stakes with small target holes that can be fine tuned in vertical position.  The Bonneville Salt Flats or any large enough and calm body of water like the Old Bedford Level would be a perfect location.

Test one: Based on the earth being flat and EA being true. At point zero place a laser (or whatever device is deemed worthy) 36" from the ground aimed parallel with the ground. Placed at regular intervals down the range are stakes with target holes at increasing elevations based on a prediction of upward bend. At the end of a predetermined distance have a light sensing device where the predicted light should be received. If the light emitted from point zero is received at the end of its predicted path at the right spot then EA has just made a great leap forward.

Test two: Based on the earth being round and emitted light traveling in a straight path over the ground. At point Zero place a laser 72" from the ground and aimed downward slightly. At regular intervals along the range place stakes with target holes in decreasing heights until the calculated apex of the curve of the earth between point zero and the receiving point. Then more stakes placed at increasing heights from the curve apex to the planned receiving point 72" from the ground.

Test three: A combination of all Ideas: At point zero place a laser one foot (12") off the ground. In-between point zero and the destination point place stakes with target holes all at 12" from the ground. The planned receiving point is also at 12" from the ground.
Only one of the three tests should work and the results/observations from each test would also generate evidence for why the others did or did not work.

What do you guys think? I just cooked this one up while reading the thread. It probably needs a few tweaks.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 01:31:14 PM by Sentient Pizza »
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
?

cdenley

  • 296
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #95 on: July 02, 2009, 01:30:49 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 12:18:12 PM
How about a tape measure?
http://www.amazon.com/Tape-Measure-330-Meters-Metric/dp/B0002K02WE
It should allow you to measure 50 meters within 5.6 cm accuracy.

How are you going to ensure the tape is perfectly straight over a length of 50 metres?
Simply pulling on it to ensure it is taut should provide the required accuracy.
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #96 on: July 02, 2009, 02:15:33 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 01:18:20 PM
No; the direction light is travelling in a two-dimensional plane corresponds to dy/dx in an arbitrary co-ordinate system. If we allow our co-ordinate system to vary such that dy/dx is always 0, we may express the curvature as d2y/dx2, which has units of inverse distance.

Yes it is in a  2 dimensional plane but there is no need to over complicate with differential equations that are not required as a simple bit of logic will suffice.

The total internal reflection with a curved light would cause scattering and probably end up with very distorted signal as the light disperses and signal attenuation occurs.

I used 1um as an example due to the wavelengths of light signals in fibers. Fiber optics usually use IR (from 850 - 1600 nm wavelength) thus if you distort the signal by even this small amount over 1 meter (well within the curvature of the earth or the 'bend' on your theory) it would have the effect of steering the wave into the wall of the cable gradually increasing the angle of reflection and by doing so increasing scattering and attenuation. This would therefore not work over long distances and the fiber would be useless.
Logged
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #97 on: July 02, 2009, 03:52:34 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 12:20:49 PM
Sorry I meant a deviation of 1um from straight over 1 meter (defining a bend over a set distance) and no it shouldn't be in inverse units of measurement (not distance) as I am not talking about a nonsense figure (inverse measurements would simply equate to very small numbers 1/X) but a deviation from straight.

First of all, the very slight curvature over short distances would still allow total internal reflection to take place.

Well...a micrometre deviation in a fibre optic over a metre of distance is a pretty big one, especially considering the wavelengths at work. TIR would be distorted - to the point where attenuation would increase considerably due to magnificently larger occurences of reflection, and over a long distance of a few KM for example - there would be serious signal degradation to the point where typical error correction methods probably couldn't cope. A parity bit for example would be not nearly enough to deal with the issues.
Logged
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #98 on: July 02, 2009, 11:26:50 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 08:43:56 AM
Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 07:39:12 AM
Round earth curvature can be measured with current technology(triangulation, lasers, whatever) but your EA existence can't be measured or proven in any way.
How can you say that when the theory isn't even complete yet? Allow me to publish my documentation regarding EA canon (next semester starts Monday 27th of July, I'm hoping to have it done by then - unfortunately it has been set back considerably by studies during the previous semester) and then we can discuss ways to distinguish between RE and FE+EA.
Theory. You always talk about theory and as I have said earlier anyone can devise some equation which draws some graphs with parabola. But actual data, measurements, experiments? You don't have any way to detect or measure your EA and you never will.
Logged
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #99 on: July 03, 2009, 02:48:20 AM »
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on July 02, 2009, 01:29:22 PM
What do you guys think? I just cooked this one up while reading the thread. It probably needs a few tweaks.

It could work; the measurements would need to be extremely accurate, though.

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 01:30:49 PM
Simply pulling on it to ensure it is taut should provide the required accuracy.

I disagree; gravitation will cause it to sag.

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 02:15:33 PM
Yes it is in a  2 dimensional plane but there is no need to over complicate with differential equations that are not required as a simple bit of logic will suffice.

First you tell me I have no idea what I am talking about in simple maths, and then you say there's no need to overcomplicate things. To be honest, I didn't think there was much need to bring calculus into it either, but apparently your lack of understanding of what curvature is mandates it.

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 02:15:33 PM
The total internal reflection with a curved light would cause scattering and probably end up with very distorted signal as the light disperses and signal attenuation occurs.

Why would it cause scattering, and why would there be signal attenuation?

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 02:15:33 PM
I used 1um as an example due to the wavelengths of light signals in fibers. Fiber optics usually use IR (from 850 - 1600 nm wavelength) thus if you distort the signal by even this small amount over 1 meter (well within the curvature of the earth or the 'bend' on your theory) it would have the effect of steering the wave into the wall of the cable gradually increasing the angle of reflection and by doing so increasing scattering and attenuation. This would therefore not work over long distances and the fiber would be useless.

Yes, it would steer the wave into the wall of the cable. But so does bending the optic fibre itself, and fibres seem to work just fine in all sorts of shapes. Why would the angle of reflection gradually increase?

Quote from: julianmartin on July 02, 2009, 03:52:34 PM
Well...a micrometre deviation in a fibre optic over a metre of distance is a pretty big one, especially considering the wavelengths at work. TIR would be distorted - to the point where attenuation would increase considerably due to magnificently larger occurences of reflection, and over a long distance of a few KM for example - there would be serious signal degradation to the point where typical error correction methods probably couldn't cope. A parity bit for example would be not nearly enough to deal with the issues.

How can there be larger occurences of reflection when all of the light is already being reflected?

Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 11:26:50 PM
Theory. You always talk about theory and as I have said earlier anyone can devise some equation which draws some graphs with parabola. But actual data, measurements, experiments? You don't have any way to detect or measure your EA and you never will.

How am I supposed to come up with a way to measure something that hasn't been comprehensively described yet?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Squat

Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #100 on: July 03, 2009, 03:00:05 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 02:48:20 AM

I disagree; gravitation will cause it to sag.


Are you sure?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #101 on: July 03, 2009, 03:11:59 AM »
Quote from: Squat on July 03, 2009, 03:00:05 AM
Are you sure?

Yes. A perfectly taut tape in the presence of a gravitational field with no other forces acting on it is not a stable system. Good luck drawing a free-body diagram for a point on such a tape with a net force of zero.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #102 on: July 03, 2009, 03:16:30 AM »
Robosteve you still have no idea what you are talking about. (I assume you know how to search the net and read, that is why you think you do)

The wavelength of the light wave is smaller than the internal diameter of the fiber. (wavelength = 1um fiber = 10um)
If the light were to 'bend' it would reflect off the internal wall at a greater angle, as the angle increases so do losses induced by scattering and by general photon absorbtion. The reflection angle would continue to increase as the light is continually bending (light wouldn't go straight until it gets to the horizon then bend as that would be daft it would have to be constant)

Optical fibers are designed to reflect only certain wavelengths and angles and the angles will be constant even with bends in the cabling.

Fibers will not work with straight light if the bend is a 90* angle, that is not how they work. When your 'bendy' light reaches a point, possibly after 2 meters, the signal at the end would be unreadable and so useless.
Logged
?

Squat

Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #103 on: July 03, 2009, 03:17:10 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 03:11:59 AM
Quote from: Squat on July 03, 2009, 03:00:05 AM
Are you sure?

Yes. A perfectly taut tape in the presence of a gravitational field with no other forces acting on it is not a stable system. Good luck drawing a free-body diagram for a point on such a tape with a net force of zero.

I wasn't disputing the effect.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #104 on: July 03, 2009, 03:21:10 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:16:30 AM
If the light were to 'bend' it would reflect off the internal wall at a greater angle

A greater angle than what?

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:16:30 AM
as the angle increases so do losses induced by scattering and by general photon absorbtion.

Obviously; assuming you mean the complement of the angle of incidence. You really should specify which angle you are talking about.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:16:30 AM
The reflection angle would continue to increase as the light is continually bending (light wouldn't go straight until it gets to the horizon then bend as that would be daft it would have to be constant)

You've already said this; I want you to justify it.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:16:30 AM
Optical fibers are designed to reflect only certain wavelengths and angles and the angles will be constant even with bends in the cabling.

Yes; just as they would be constant if it were the light bending and not the fibre.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:16:30 AM
Fibers will not work with straight light if the bend is a 90* angle, that is not how they work. When your 'bendy' light reaches a point, possibly after 2 meters, the signal at the end would be unreadable and so useless.

Oh dear. Now we're measuring curvature in angular units? What does a 90° bend even mean?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 03:22:54 AM by Robosteve »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #105 on: July 03, 2009, 03:36:14 AM »
A bend at 90* is a perfect description of a bend.
You are an idiot.

The angle of reflection would change with bendy light, this does NOT happen in fiber optics.
If the light were to bend the light would reflect at a greater angle than is intended, and it would increase as it continues to bend. This is simple wave physics.

Please go to uni and learn about optical fibers, waves, waveguides, communications, etc.

Also the angle of reflection is highly dependant of the cable and light used, obviously I can only prove that straight light works through a fiber as there is no way to bend light and send it down a fiber and prove that it doesnt work.

Your problem is that you have been beaten by this and instead of actually trying to disprove it you are picking holes in what I say, the most typical defense of someone who is beaten. Thankyou.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #106 on: July 03, 2009, 03:44:20 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:36:14 AM
A bend at 90* is a perfect description of a bend.

Of a corner, yes. However, light does not suddenly decide to shoot off at a different angle; it curves smoothly.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:36:14 AM
The angle of reflection would change with bendy light, this does NOT happen in fiber optics.
If the light were to bend the light would reflect at a greater angle than is intended, and it would increase as it continues to bend. This is simple wave physics.

You've said this at least three times now. Please justify it.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:36:14 AM
Please go to uni and learn about optical fibers, waves, waveguides, communications, etc.

I studied optics this semester just ended. Not that it matters; all your education in the discipline seems to have done you little good.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:36:14 AM
Your problem is that you have been beaten by this and instead of actually trying to disprove it you are picking holes in what I say, the most typical defense of someone who is beaten. Thankyou.

I'm sorry, beaten how? I've asked you three times to justify a particular statement and instead you keep repeating it. Do you have any justification for it?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #107 on: July 03, 2009, 03:53:04 AM »
Oddly the 90* is the angle of the cable.
It can be used to describe an angle of light.

You obviously havent studied optics.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #108 on: July 03, 2009, 04:06:35 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 03:53:04 AM
Oddly the 90* is the angle of the cable.
It can be used to describe an angle of light.

You obviously havent studied optics.

You obviously haven't studied elementary geometry. An angle requires two reference gradients, not one.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #109 on: July 03, 2009, 04:17:36 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 04:06:35 AM
You obviously haven't studied elementary geometry. An angle requires two reference gradients, not one.

What?
An angle of a cable, or bend/corner can be defined using one angle. The angle of the bend.
You do not need reference gradients as the bend is the inside angle and is what you are after.
Please just accept defeat, the world is a spheroid and light doesnt bend.

If you were studying optics the fact you believe light can bend makes me think you failed miserably.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #110 on: July 03, 2009, 04:31:44 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:17:36 AM
What?
An angle of a cable, or bend/corner can be defined using one angle. The angle of the bend.
You do not need reference gradients as the bend is the inside angle and is what you are after.

You are making no sense whatsoever. Taking a wild guess at what you might mean, EA theory does not predict a sudden change in direction, rather a smooth transition. You could measure this in radians per metre, but not degrees.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:17:36 AM
If you were studying optics the fact you believe light can bend makes me think you failed miserably.

I should get my marks back for the course soon. Though I must say, nuclear physics - the other subject area we studied during the semester - was a far more interesting topic than optics.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #111 on: July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 04:31:44 AM
You are making no sense whatsoever. Taking a wild guess at what you might mean, EA theory does not predict a sudden change in direction, rather a smooth transition. You could measure this in radians per metre, but not degrees.

Again I am talking about the angle of the cable.
But you can use radians or degrees it doesnt actually matter as there is a direct conversion from one to the other as they both describe the same thing. (1 radian = 180*)

Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 04:31:44 AM
I should get my marks back for the course soon. Though I must say, nuclear physics - the other subject area we studied during the semester - was a far more interesting topic than optics.

Where do you study?

Interesting course studying a module in nuclear physics, what are you taking?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #112 on: July 03, 2009, 04:44:33 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM
Again I am talking about the angle of the cable.

Again, a cable does not have an angle. You require two reference gradients in order to calculate an angle.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM
(1 radian = 180*)

lol

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM
Where do you study?

University of Sydney.

Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM
Interesting course studying a module in nuclear physics, what are you taking?

Physics, currently in second year. Next semester I get to study quantum mechanics and special relativity, among other things.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #113 on: July 03, 2009, 04:59:03 AM »
I obviously meant 180/pi, lazy typos.

And a cables bend does have an angle.
Being an engineer we use angles to define things like cable bends quite often.

If you are taking physics does that mean you are joining the conspiracy?
I wonder when they will teach you about gravity and light and the curvature of the earth?
The uni of sydney must be poor to accept you.
Logged
?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #114 on: July 03, 2009, 04:59:50 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 02:48:20 AM
Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 11:26:50 PM
Theory. You always talk about theory and as I have said earlier anyone can devise some equation which draws some graphs with parabola. But actual data, measurements, experiments? You don't have any way to detect or measure your EA and you never will.
How am I supposed to come up with a way to measure something that hasn't been comprehensively described yet?
How do you describe anything that doesn't manifest itself and what you can't observe and measure? Your only argument has been that light bends because of EA but that doesn't base on anything. It's just your word/theory. How do you determine at all that light bends? And if you can show that it bends then how do you show that it bends because of EA and not because of something else? You don't have any characteristics which describe EA in any way.
Logged
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #115 on: July 03, 2009, 08:50:12 AM »
 
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 04:39:26 AM
(1 radian = 180*)

Lol

Yeah that was pretty good. When I was reading it I thought to myself "?uh...what? I thought a radian was around 57deg."

Unfortunately, for you Robosteve this guy is right about how fiber optics works, He is also right about the theories and maths that the whole concept is based on. Granted he's no good at describing it but he is correct about how and why it works. It's been a few years since my courses on Fiber Optics so I would have to do some digging to get the proper maths for you. I know me saying "he is right" is not in any way the kind of proof that you are requesting.

Also it's possible that the EA under construction has no effect on fiber optics. As I understand it EA is solely a theory to explain why there is a horizon (i.e. the sinking ship problem) and why we can't see the sun at night. Maybe the EA idea can explain the straight (and more widely accepted) behavior of light in other situations like fiber optics. Plus fiber optics does work right now. So if EA is real, it will have to have an explanation for things like fiber optics.

Any debate about a theory that has not been released yet cannot be stated as who is right or wrong. Without the fleshed out theory and test data discussion about it can only be in suggestion form.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 10:07:59 AM by Sentient Pizza »
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #116 on: July 03, 2009, 09:26:52 AM »
No, I think Robosteve is right in this situation regarding fibre optics.

What you're agreeing to is that a fibre optic cable, following the curvature of the earth, will transmit data just fine when 'normal' light is sent through the cable, but a straight cable with bendy light approximating the curvature of the earth would result in a total loss of data.

I would also like some justification for this assertion.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
?

Squat

Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #117 on: July 03, 2009, 09:37:38 AM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on July 03, 2009, 09:26:52 AM
No, I think Robosteve is right in this situation regarding fibre optics.

What you're agreeing to is that a fibre optic cable, following the curvature of the earth, will transmit data just fine when 'normal' light is sent through the cable, but a straight cable with bendy light approximating the curvature of the earth would result in a total loss of data.

I would also like some justification for this assertion.

I don't know anything about fibre optics but I believe that fibre optic cables work quite well right now with light travelling the way it does. Any current 'bendy' light theory has yet to be proven (and I seriously doubt that Robosteve is going to do it but I wish him all the best).  Nobody is looking to make new light are they. The theory is that you can't see over the horizon because light bends. Light goes down fibre optic cables quite happily now regardless of whether it is straight or bendy light, so what is there to prove?

Logged
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #118 on: July 03, 2009, 10:22:32 AM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on July 03, 2009, 09:26:52 AM
No, I think Robosteve is right in this situation regarding fibre optics.

What you're agreeing to is that a fibre optic cable, following the curvature of the earth, will transmit data just fine when 'normal' light is sent through the cable, but a straight cable with bendy light approximating the curvature of the earth would result in a total loss of data.

I would also like some justification for this assertion.

You're confusing a couple of things there I think.

The curvature of the fibre due to the earth hasn't been accounted for so far. The way fibre optics are made ensure gentle bends do not effect the angles of TIR within the fibre itself. Actual earth curvature can be considered negligible.

If light bends in a fibre - there is a great possibility that over a fair amount of distance, TIR will no longer be able to function completely; as the incidence angle of the light on the boundary will probably drop below its critical angle, allowing signals to effectively be lost. (Edit: this can be compared to the reasons behind an acceptance cone of a fibre optic)Thus attenuation shoots up and so does signal degradation. Eventually, the effect will be a degradation that cannot be counteracted by error detection.

The principle of total internal reflection with straight light ensures that incidence angles are always above the critical angle of the boundaries. Again, this is simple optical physics.

Light bending inside an optic would mean the angle of incidence would most definitley change - not sure why or how anyone could deny that. Thus over enough distance, an optical fibre would be rendered useless.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2009, 10:24:22 AM by julianmartin »
Logged
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #119 on: July 03, 2009, 10:38:23 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 03, 2009, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: EnigmaZV on July 03, 2009, 09:26:52 AM
No, I think Robosteve is right in this situation regarding fibre optics.

What you're agreeing to is that a fibre optic cable, following the curvature of the earth, will transmit data just fine when 'normal' light is sent through the cable, but a straight cable with bendy light approximating the curvature of the earth would result in a total loss of data.

I would also like some justification for this assertion.

You're confusing a couple of things there I think.

The curvature of the fibre due to the earth hasn't been accounted for so far. The way fibre optics are made ensure gentle bends do not effect the angles of TIR within the fibre itself. Actual earth curvature can be considered negligible.

If light bends in a fibre - there is a great possibility that over a fair amount of distance, TIR will no longer be able to function completely; as the incidence angle of the light on the boundary will probably drop below its critical angle, allowing signals to effectively be lost. (Edit: this can be compared to the reasons behind an acceptance cone of a fibre optic)Thus attenuation shoots up and so does signal degradation. Eventually, the effect will be a degradation that cannot be counteracted by error detection.

The principle of total internal reflection with straight light ensures that incidence angles are always above the critical angle of the boundaries. Again, this is simple optical physics.

Light bending inside an optic would mean the angle of incidence would most definitley change - not sure why or how anyone could deny that. Thus over enough distance, an optical fibre would be rendered useless.

What he said. Obviously this guy is has it all fresher in his mind than me, but that is what I was getting at.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
« previous next »