This is easily explained by the fact that light bends upwards.Suddenly the EA speculative hypothesis has become a fact?
(http://i35.tinypic.com/67jrxg.png)
well i guess if you are flying over the clouds... thats helps but if you are under the clouds... doesn't help at all.
Suddenly the EA speculative hypothesis has become a fact?
Every time you say you do not have the maths yet or that you have an acceleration for Earth and an another acceleration for electromagnetic waves it is perfectly acceptable if it is a speculation. But here you say it is a fact!
One problem with the way your theory works. The clouds would light up for much longer than what is observed, hours, well in to the afternoon or in to the late night. These clouds would be more common and also occur at lower level clouds since once the light goes in an upward direction (relative to the earths surface) it would light up every clouds base right after dusk and just before dawn. This doesn't fit with current observations, and I don't feel that it explains Noctilucent Clouds.
One problem with the way your theory works. The clouds would light up for much longer than what is observed, hours, well in to the afternoon or in to the late night. These clouds would be more common and also occur at lower level clouds since once the light goes in an upward direction (relative to the earths surface) it would light up every clouds base right after dusk and just before dawn. This doesn't fit with current observations, and I don't feel that it explains Noctilucent Clouds.
No it wouldn't. Light from angles too far from vertical would reach its lowest point above the clouds, so it wouldn't light them up. You must remember that, when close to horizontal, the EA on a Flat Earth is almost indistinguishable from what would happen if light travelled in a straight line on a Round Earth. So if you say that this does not explain it, then you are saying that RET does not either.
May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system
May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system
The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle too small to see or detect.
May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system
The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle too small to see or detect.
Proof?
How ironic. Either gravitons cause gravitation and cause the Earth to be round, or the earth is flat and gravitons bend light.
Which would you rather believe?
Keep in mind, we do have evidence that all mass/energy attracts mass/energy (Cavendish experiments, gravimetric surveys, etc) and no proof that light bends upward.
QuoteProof?
Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.
This is evidence that light bends upwards.
Sure there is. Shine a laser beam over a one mile long lake and you'll see that the receiving photons arrive at a higher altitude.
Aha! So what about the Rowbotham experiments? Shouldn't they be affected too? Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?
I'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving. That experiment is also explained by RE. There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.
However, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.
QuoteAha! So what about the Rowbotham experiments? Shouldn't they be affected too? Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?
I'm thinking it has something to do with scale and exactly how shallow of a curve the light rays are bending as they proceed through their course. Depending on the particulars Rowbotham's experiments over the six mile stretch of the Bedford Canal may be entirely compatible with the bending-light theory.
QuoteI'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving. That experiment is also explained by RE. There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.
There is no experiment which suggests that the earth is curving rather than photons curving. All of your experiments are also explained by FE.
QuoteHowever, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.
I walked off of the edge of my chair just now. I didn't see any evidence of universal gravitation between masses. I just the saw the earth accelerate upwards to meet me.
May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system
May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system
The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle emitted by the cosmos which is too small to see or detect.
I disagree. Look at the heavens. A round earth requires that stars travel across the sky in perfect circular arcs. Equatorial mount telescopes take advantage of this fact. I find that light bending in such a way to make stars appear travel in perfect circular arcs in a giant celestial sphere is too big of coincidence to believe.
See Cavendish experiments and gravimetry. The existence of universal gravitation strongly suggests the Earth must be round.
When one looks up into the night sky he is looking at stars all around him. Of course it's going to look like a dome.
Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
QuoteI disagree. Look at the heavens. A round earth requires that stars travel across the sky in perfect circular arcs. Equatorial mount telescopes take advantage of this fact. I find that light bending in such a way to make stars appear travel in perfect circular arcs in a giant celestial sphere is too big of coincidence to believe.
When one looks up into the night sky he is looking at stars all around him. Of course it's going to look like a dome.QuoteSee Cavendish experiments and gravimetry. The existence of universal gravitation strongly suggests the Earth must be round.
Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
And the stars will travel in perfect circular arcs?
And the elevation of the North Star corresponding to one's latitude? What are the chances light bends like that?
Every star rotates with the same angular velocity? What are the chances that a swirling gravitationally bound system would do that?
The only reasonable explanation without relying on numerous coincidences is that the Earth is spherical and that it or the heavens are rotating uniformly.
One person who has whackjob views on gravity and no understanding of general relativity speculates on flaws with the Cavendish experiment. How does that prove anything? Where is your data?
What about the questions this topic asked? are you going to answer it?
I understand what you are saying here, but that is not what i pointed out.
These clouds can be several miles long but the curvature of the earth quickly covers them in shade. The light bendy thing would keep them lit up a lot longer.
I don't remember the exact arc of the light but for some reason I think I read in another thread its like 6-8 inches every miles (please correct me if I am wrong). If you have Noctilucent clouds that can be 75+ miles up, the bendy light would keep them lit up much longer. I am not talking about light running parallel to the clouds I understand it would not light anything up. But since the light has a constant upward arc the clouds would pretty much stay lit all night long.
I understand what you are saying here, but that is not what i pointed out.
These clouds can be several miles long but the curvature of the earth quickly covers them in shade. The light bendy thing would keep them lit up a lot longer.
I don't remember the exact arc of the light but for some reason I think I read in another thread its like 6-8 inches every miles (please correct me if I am wrong). If you have Noctilucent clouds that can be 75+ miles up, the bendy light would keep them lit up much longer. I am not talking about light running parallel to the clouds I understand it would not light anything up. But since the light has a constant upward arc the clouds would pretty much stay lit all night long.
No. When the Sun is far enough away, a parabolic arc with appropriate concavity joining the clouds and the Sun would intersect the surface of the Earth. Therefore, the Earth intercepts the light before it can reach the clouds.
Quick question... what's the curve? how many inches a mile? (light bendy)
If you tell me this I can work out an more accurate drawing of what I am saying.
Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.Dear Tom Bishop (and Robosteve), maybe you think you’re helping the FET with this, buy you’re not, and here’s why:
This is evidence that light bends upwards.
Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.Dear Tom Bishop (and Robosteve), maybe you think you’re helping the FET with this, buy you’re not, and here’s why:
This is evidence that light bends upwards.
1) If the light would really bent as you say, it would make a liar out of Parallax, who stated in his book that, with the help of a good telescope the sunken ship effect is reversed and the whole image restored. If the light would bend, then whatever the zoom one had, it would be impossible to restore the image without getting to a higher point of observation, as it would be also if the Earth would be curved. So you have to decide if you trust Parallax or you choose this weird „bendy light” nonsense.
2) Before making a claim about "bending", a Zetetician should wonder: the light “bends” (upward) relative to what straight line? I mean, what is the definition of „straight”*? If one sees a long row of trees (or lamp posts), how can one decide if they are in a straight line or not? Well, one would look to see if their edge would “align” while standing at one extreme of the row, such as no tree would have the edge in front or behind the line of vision. And the line of vision is, obviously, a ray of light that is getting to the eye. This is true not only for the vertical, but for whatever oblique direction or even the horizontal.
So, if the line of vision is the straight line, and the distance between such an horizontal line and the surface of the earth would increase (as you mistakenly claim) then it would be not the light “bending upwards” (the line is straight!) but the surface bending downwards… And those ignorant RErs would be right about the curved shape of the Earth (luckily they aren’t).
In conclusion, I hope the RErs, or other more knowledgeable FErs would soon prove that this nonsense about the “bending light” in the proximity of the Earth is false and whatever formula Robosteve would give here to be shown wrong, as it would obviously be.
* I sure hope that you don’t suggest the surface of the Earth to be the “straight” line here, because that would be a circular definition: “The Earth is flat because the Earth is the standard of straight”… You would make the FET sound illogical and utterly ridiculous. Please stop already.
A straight line may be defined as the path taken by an inertial observer; or, more succinctly, a geodesic in spacetime.
A straight line may be defined as the path taken by an inertial observer; or, more succinctly, a geodesic in spacetime.
And the light rays don't follow such paths?
What is it that deviates them from the geodesic?A straight line may be defined as the path taken by an inertial observer; or, more succinctly, a geodesic in spacetime.
And the light rays don't follow such paths?
No, they don't.
Quick question... what's the curve? how many inches a mile? (light bendy)
If you tell me this I can work out an more accurate drawing of what I am saying.
Google calculator tells me it is 7.99360592 (inches per mile) per mile, when fed with appropriate data.
What is it that deviates them from the geodesic?
I see...What is it that deviates them from the geodesic?
A force perpendicular to their direction of motion, caused by Dark Energy.
I see...
Is there anything able to follow a horizontal straight line on Earth, or is this Dark Energy affecting averything?
To answer your question more directly, anything that is not electromagnetic radiation will follow a geodesic through spacetime if set moving horizontally in a vacuum on Earth.But that trajectory depends on the horizontal velocity and initial altitude (it is seen as different parabola from the earth's reference frame) ... Are they all "straight"?
I see...
Is there anything able to follow a horizontal straight line on Earth, or is this Dark Energy affecting averything?
Dark Energy affects both ordinary matter and electromagnetic radiation, albeit in very different ways. When it strikes matter, it is comparable to a wind, in that it causes the Earth to accelerate upwards, but does not directly affect us - we feel it indirectly as the Earth accelerates up towards us. I have already described its effect on electromagnetic radiation. To answer your question more directly, anything that is not electromagnetic radiation will follow a geodesic through spacetime if set moving horizontally in a vacuum on Earth.
But that trajectory depends on the horizontal velocity and initial altitude (it is seen as different parabola from the earth's reference frame) ... Are they all "straight"?
Seems really bold to state properties of DE, and the way it behaves and interacts with our Earth. You don't even know if it is real... I don't know either, I am not going to say it does or doesn't.
One thing is for sure you don't know the properties of DE or how it behaves, so in this case DE is a scapegoat more than a valid theory.
Well, if the trajectories of all objects set in motion horizontally in vacuum are "straight" whatever their horizontal velocity, it follows that the surface of the Earth is not straight, as it is not parallel to those trajectories (they intersect in many cases). So your "bendy light" hypothesis, that needs a definition of straight related to geodesics that are not followed by light, just proved the Earth not to be flat. Are you aware of this? Will you let this hypothesis go now?But that trajectory depends on the horizontal velocity and initial altitude (it is seen as different parabola from the earth's reference frame) ... Are they all "straight"?
Yes.
It is the Earth that is not moving along a geodesic, not freely falling objects.It is obvious that the Earth itself is not moving along a geodesic, as it is accelerating.
Well, if the trajectories of all objects set in motion horizontally in vacuum are "straight" whatever their horizontal velocity, it follows that the surface of the Earth is not straight, as it is not parallel to those trajectories (they intersect in many cases). So your "bendy light" hypothesis, that needs a definition of straight related to geodesics that are not followed by light, just proved the Earth not to be flat. Are you aware of this? Will you let this hypothesis go now?
It is obvious that the Earth itself is not moving along a geodesic, as it is accelerating.
The surface of the Earth is flat.I know that.
It is also accelerating, and therefore not moving along a geodesic, which for the purposes of this discussion we are defining to be a straight line.I understand this, although the definition of "straight" is faulty, see below.
So, in four-dimensional spacetime, a point on the three-dimensional surface of the Earth is not straight.I don't understand how can a point be "straight" or not, whatever the number of dimensions. A point is just a point.
Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Please read this critique (by a round earth advocate), and tell me how confident you are in the Cavendish values of G. It's mind numbing that this farce has been repeated over and again in places of supposed higher learning.
http://milesmathis.com/caven.html
Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That’s a thirty percent error.
I don't understand how can a point be "straight" or not, whatever the number of dimensions. A point is just a point.
And, are you saying that, according to you, the Earth is flat only "in four dimensional space-time", and not flat in the three dimensional space (a section of simultaneity in the 4D space-time)?
And please note that I'm not concerned with the movement of the Earth along geodesics, but with the fact that if we were to take your definition of "straight", then the surface of the Earth would no longer be flat! It's the trajectory of other bodies (thrown horizontally in vacuum), intersecting with the surface of the Earth that shows it. Is that so hard to understand?
I don't understand how can a point be "straight" or not, whatever the number of dimensions. A point is just a point.
A point in three-dimensional space is a function in four-dimensional spacetime.And, are you saying that, according to you, the Earth is flat only "in four dimensional space-time", and not flat in the three dimensional space (a section of simultaneity in the 4D space-time)?
No, I am saying the reverse. Of course, the Earth's surface in four-dimensional spacetime is really a four-dimensional object, so "flat" cannot apply to it in any case.And please note that I'm not concerned with the movement of the Earth along geodesics, but with the fact that if we were to take your definition of "straight", then the surface of the Earth would no longer be flat! It's the trajectory of other bodies (thrown horizontally in vacuum), intersecting with the surface of the Earth that shows it. Is that so hard to understand?
My definition of "straight" is intended only to apply in the context of four-dimensional spacetime. I have already stated that the qualification "flat" is not applicable to the Earth in this context.
A point in three-dimensional space is a function in four-dimensional spacetime.That’s nice, but as long as you don’t specify in what context you speak, your assertion is meaningless (and therefore useless). Stop talking in contexts other than the one where we try to establish the truth of Earth’s flat shape.
No, I am saying the reverse. Of course, the Earth's surface in four-dimensional spacetime is really a four-dimensional object, so "flat" cannot apply to it in any case.So, stop talking about four dimensions and return to the surface of the Earth where we need to show it is flat.
My definition of "straight" is intended only to apply in the context of four-dimensional spacetime. I have already stated that the qualification "flat" is not applicable to the Earth in this context.Ok, by what definition in three dimensions of "straight", is the light, in your hypothesis, “bending upwards”?
Ok, by what definition in three dimensions of "straight", is the light, in your hypothesis, “bending upwards”?
As a note: please read more carefully my questions. If you go back you’ll see that I started by asking for a way to determine what a “straight” (horizontal, no less) line is, relative to the surface of the Earth (and the "bent light" of Tom Bishop's claim), and not about your spectacular knowledge of four dimensions.
Ok, by what definition in three dimensions of "straight", is the light, in your hypothesis, “bending upwards”?
As a note: please read more carefully my questions. If you go back you’ll see that I started by asking for a way to determine what a “straight” (horizontal, no less) line is, relative to the surface of the Earth (and the "bent light" of Tom Bishop's claim), and not about your spectacular knowledge of four dimensions.
It is not possible to describe the path of light in three dimensions, as a photon is necessarily a four-dimensional construct.
It is not possible to describe the path of light in three dimensions, as a photon is necessarily a four-dimensional construct.Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?
I'm not seeing what you are getting at. Please explain.
Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?
And let's get back to the "straight" lines, that we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, in three dimensions. If light can't help us, what can? Are you telling me there is no way to "obtain" (as in, observe) a straight line in three dimensions, or what?
Are you ready to let go now the ridiculous notion of "bending light" ?
I mean, if in order to talk about your hypothesis of "bending" you need to go in four dimensions, where "straight" and "flat" are unusable for our measuring the Earths surface, why bother?
If the "deflection" can't be measured (in three dimensions) why invent it? (In order to be able to measure it, we need something to measure it against!) Plus, there is no use for it, as Parallax already showed with his book that there is no bending (remember, a powerful zoom would restore the images of "sunken" ships, which is proof that the light is not bending at all).
What about this?Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?
I did not say that.
Change 7 to 8 in my above post, same difference. The ridiculous thing is the bending, the exact value you propose (calculate?) is irrelevant (as long as it is not 0).Quick question... what's the curve? how many inches a mile? (light bendy)
If you tell me this I can work out an more accurate drawing of what I am saying.
Google calculator tells me it is 7.99360592 (inches per mile) per mile, when fed with appropriate data.
Great. We're getting closer to the answer I seek. Now, tell me what is able to follow a horizontal geodesic in three dimensional space. How can we know what a straight horizontal line is? That's what I'm asking.And let's get back to the "straight" lines, that we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, in three dimensions. If light can't help us, what can? Are you telling me there is no way to "obtain" (as in, observe) a straight line in three dimensions, or what?
There most certainly is. A straight line in three dimensions is a geodesic in three-dimensional space.
Ok, you might turn it a matter of opinion. I told you it is ridiculous because it negates de FET, making a liar out of Parallax, who set the foundations of it. Or are you now an authority in FET higher than Parallax himself? Do you see the ridicule of your position? If you don't see it, then whatever. You should not lose sleep over my opinion about your ridicule hypothesis.Are you ready to let go now the ridiculous notion of "bending light" ?
Not until you have shown why it is ridiculous.
Thus far, you have only managed to confuse a particle travelling in a straight line with a flat surface, a difference I would expect a ten year old to be able to describe.Oh, so now you talk about 10 years olds. Very helpful.
Maybe you think your response is funny, or even helpful, but I don't.If the "deflection" can't be measured (in three dimensions) why invent it? (In order to be able to measure it, we need something to measure it against!) Plus, there is no use for it, as Parallax already showed with his book that there is no bending (remember, a powerful zoom would restore the images of "sunken" ships, which is proof that the light is not bending at all).You could not have typed that post in a three dimensional world, so why post it?
Plus, I don't care what Parallax showed, light that bends explains observed phenomena much better than light that travels in a straight line.Here is where I don't get how is it possible that you are let by the FErs of this forum to call Parallax a liar with your hypothesis of "bending" light. You think you're helping the FET but you're trashing Parallax's work and with it the FET. Sadly. :'(
What about this?Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?
I did not say that.Change 7 to 8 in my above post, same difference. The ridiculous thing is the bending, the exact value you propose (calculate?) is irrelevant (as long as it is not 0).Quick question... what's the curve? how many inches a mile? (light bendy)
If you tell me this I can work out an more accurate drawing of what I am saying.
Google calculator tells me it is 7.99360592 (inches per mile) per mile, when fed with appropriate data.
Great. We're getting closer to the answer I seek. Now, tell me what is able to follow a horizontal geodesic in three dimensional space. How can we know what a straight horizontal line is? That's what I'm asking.
Ok, you might turn it a matter of opinion. I told you it is ridiculous because it negates de FET, making a liar out of Parallax, who set the foundations of it. Or are you now an authority in FET higher than Parallax himself? Do you see the ridicule of your position? If you don't see it, then whatever. You should not lose sleep over my opinion about your ridicule hypothesis.
Oh, so now you talk about 10 years olds. Very helpful.
I'm not confusing any particle with a surface. I ask for a way to compare the "bendy light" to a horizontal straight line. That’s what you need in order to measure a 7 or 8 inches or whatever deviation "up". And that's what we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, incidentally.
Maybe you should remember that "bent" only has a meaning if you define somewhere "straight". That's what I'm asking, else, your measurement/calculation is meaningless.
Maybe you think your response is funny, or even helpful, but I don't.
Here is where I don't get how is it possible that you are let by the FErs of this forum to call Parallax a liar with your hypothesis of "bending" light. You think you're helping the FET but you're trashing Parallax's work and with it the FET. Sadly. :'(
Inches per mile per mile is not the same thing as inches per mile.I will repeat: it's not the value itself (as long as it is not zero), but the bending that is ridiculous. And I'd appreciate it if you could explain what it means for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Since when is the deviation measured in such a unit? And if what you calculated is not the deviation, than what value do you find for the deviation?
Nothing is able to follow such a path, as the word "follow" implies the presence of a temporal dimension.I hope you're not being intentionally dense about this...
Also, "ridicule" is a verb.ok.
I already told you, the path light follows may be compared to a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. My calculation of 8 inches per mile per mile, however, represents an appropriation of the phenomenon to our own non-inertial frame of reference, such that it is relative to the surface of the Earth.And my question for you is: compared to what "straight line" did you evaluate the "bending"? Again, don’t tell me it’s a line drown on the surface of the Earth, because that is a circular definition for Earth’s flatness. (Which renders the FET nonsensical and useless. Not helping!)
No, I am attempting to improve upon the FE model.Unfortunately you’re not.
Should Einstein not have been allowed to question the accepted Newtonian physics of his time?I'll try not to make any comment on your comparing yourself with Einstein, while comparing Parallax with Newton. ::)
Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.
With the distances we're talking about here it's conceivable that a perspective effect could take place before light had a chance to bend upwards by any significant degree.
Inches per mile per mile is not the same thing as inches per mile.I will repeat: it's not the value itself (as long as it is not zero), but the bending that is ridiculous. And I'd appreciate it if you could explain what it means for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Since when is the deviation measured in such a unit? And if what you calculated is not the deviation, than what value do you find for the deviation?
QuoteNothing is able to follow such a path, as the word "follow" implies the presence of a temporal dimension.I hope you're not being intentionally dense about this...
In order to visualize a trajectory, without needing the time dimension, you could do the following: Take a number of objects and make them follow the said trajectory, at short (as short as possible) intervals of time. Then, when enough of them are “on the way”, you take a picture and voila! You can see it. So don't give me that excuse. Just tell me what do I need to do to have something follow a horizontal straight line. Please.
QuoteI already told you, the path light follows may be compared to a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. My calculation of 8 inches per mile per mile, however, represents an appropriation of the phenomenon to our own non-inertial frame of reference, such that it is relative to the surface of the Earth.And my question for you is: compared to what "straight line" did you evaluate the "bending"? Again, don’t tell me it’s a line drown on the surface of the Earth, because that is a circular definition for Earth’s flatness. (Which renders the FET nonsensical and useless. Not helping!)
Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.
If what Parallax observed can be reduced to a particular case (a limit) of your theory, then you have a chance of improving the FET. Can you show that this is the case? Try and you’ll see that you can’t.
Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.
No, it is not.
Steve, does this mean that you believe that because of bendy light, the sunken hull of a ship cannot be restored, no matter how powerful the magnification? If so, that directly contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of FET.
I'd say that the observations made by Parallax were at least one mile away. For shorter distances, the perspective effect he talked about is practically inexistent. Do you disagree?QuoteHere is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.
Wouldn't that depend how far away the sunken ship was from the observers who claim to have restored the hull with a telescope?
With the distances we're talking about here it's conceivable that a perspective effect could take place before light had a chance to bend upwards by any significant degree.You said that from a mile away, the bending of light is noticeable (see the first quote I used in this thread).
You still didn't explain (supposing you are able to) what does it mean for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Can you explain it or not?Inches per mile per mile is not the same thing as inches per mile.I will repeat: it's not the value itself (as long as it is not zero), but the bending that is ridiculous. And I'd appreciate it if you could explain what it means for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Since when is the deviation measured in such a unit? And if what you calculated is not the deviation, than what value do you find for the deviation?
The deviation would be equal to 0∬x1 8 inches per mile per mile * dx2, where x1 is the horizontal distance travelled by the ray of light.
Ok, so you're being dense. :(QuoteNothing is able to follow such a path, as the word "follow" implies the presence of a temporal dimension.I hope you're not being intentionally dense about this...
In order to visualize a trajectory, without needing the time dimension, you could do the following: Take a number of objects and make them follow the said trajectory, at short (as short as possible) intervals of time. Then, when enough of them are “on the way”, you take a picture and voila! You can see it. So don't give me that excuse. Just tell me what do I need to do to have something follow a horizontal straight line. Please.
What you would be seeing in that case is not a geodesic in three-dimensional space, but a three-dimensional view of a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. You cannot have something follow a path in three-dimensional space without a temporal dimension, and therefore you cannot make something follow a geodesic in space, only in spacetime.
-- emphasis added --QuoteI already told you, the path light follows may be compared to a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. My calculation of 8 inches per mile per mile, however, represents an appropriation of the phenomenon to our own non-inertial frame of reference, such that it is relative to the surface of the Earth.And my question for you is: compared to what "straight line" did you evaluate the "bending"? Again, don’t tell me it’s a line drown on the surface of the Earth, because that is a circular definition for Earth’s flatness. (Which renders the FET nonsensical and useless. Not helping!)
Assuming the Earth is flat and light does bend in the way I have supposed, then the calculation of "8 inches per mile per mile" is relative to the surface of the Earth. Simply add the Earth's acceleration of 9.8 m s-2 to this figure to get the acceleration of light relative to a geodesic in spacetime.
Ok, so at least you admit the incompatibility. It seems that Tom Bishop still doesn't see it...Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.
No, it is not.
Unfortunately, your "rational thought" is circular and therefore useless. Plus, you ignore all the hard zetetic work done by Parallax, with a hypothesis based on circular definitions ... That's exactly what Parallax wanted to avoid, the mistakes of all the "scientists" who started with their conclusions in order to "prove" them correct. And that's what you are doing.If what Parallax observed can be reduced to a particular case (a limit) of your theory, then you have a chance of improving the FET. Can you show that this is the case? Try and you’ll see that you can’t.There are no special cases. I'm not going to trust what Parallax might have seen over my own rational thought.
Well, it seems that we need to start using exact numbers, because Tom Bishop said that the effect of "bending light" is already noticeable from no more than one mile! So, please do the calculation for, say, 3 miles, to begin the precise evaluation of the ridiculousness of this hypothesis. :)Steve, does this mean that you believe that because of bendy light, the sunken hull of a ship cannot be restored, no matter how powerful the magnification? If so, that directly contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of FET.
Perhaps over short distances, it can. Certainly nothing more than ten kilometres or so.
You still didn't explain (supposing you are able to) what does it mean for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Can you explain it or not?
As for the formula, it is very ... useless, since you say nothing about the double integral, and what it means. How do you calculate a double integral using one dimension (from 0 to x1) ? Are you joking here or what? Could you at least show here how did you derive such a (ridiculous) formula?
And since you are supposed to know how to use it, could you tell me what is the value you obtain for a horizontal distance of, say, 3 miles? It would be nice to show you (and Tom Bishop) how ridiculous your hypothesis is with some numbers, as you don't seem to get it only qualitatively...
Ok, so you're being dense. :(
In order to compare the surface of the Earth with a "straight" line (in three dimensions, where the "flatness" has a useful meaning for us), we need useful a definition of "straight" lines (in three dimensions). All your talk about "geodesics" as "straight lines in four dimensions" is therefore useless for this. I proposed a way to visualize the three spatial dimensions of such a geodesic, such as not to need the time as a fourth dimension, but you decided to ignore it.
It's not the "following" that interests me (that needs "time"), but the visualizing of a straight line in three spatial dimensions. So I reiterate my question: Does your "theory" contain a useful definition of "straight lines" in three dimensions? Relative to what did you evaluate the "bending"? (That should be obvious once you show me how you have derived the double integral formula.)
But this is circular logic! You can't use the assumption of a flat Earth in order to calculate the bending of the light, which then would explain why we see what we see on our flat Earth! That would amount to "the Earth is flat because we started with the assumption that the Earth is flat", which is not what Zetetics is about. So that's how you're hurting FET, even if you don't get it. If you want to deduce from observations the true form of the Earth, you can't use the flatness as an axiom of your theory!
BTW, by constructing this ridiculous hypothesis about "bending light" , you're implicitly assuming that the observations agree with a "curved" shape of the Earth, which they don't! The restoring of the "sinked ship" image is not possible on the supposedly RE!
Without an independent definition of "straight", all your hypothesis does is make the flatness indistinguishable (by direct observation) from the "curvature" of the RET. That means throwing away one of the most powerful arguments revealed by Parallax, who showed that the zoom does restore the "sinked ship" effect, which means that we CAN observe (with adequate optical instruments) the fact that the Earth is flat! That is why so many people try to discredit Parallax, because his argument is so powerful.
Unfortunately, your "rational thought" is circular and therefore useless. Plus, you ignore all the hard zetetic work done by Parallax, with a hypothesis based on circular definitions ... That's exactly what Parallax wanted to avoid, the mistakes of all the "scientists" who started with their conclusions in order to "prove" them correct. And that's what you are doing.
Is your true intention to discredit the FET? Well, all you're doing is revealing the fallacies you personally call "rational thought".
Well, it seems that we need to start using exact numbers, because Tom Bishop said that the effect of "bending light" is already noticeable from no more than one mile! So, please do the calculation for, say, 3 miles, to begin the precise evaluation of the ridiculousness of this hypothesis. :)
I'm not familiar with this kind of measurement: "...per mile per mile". What does it mean? Is that the same thing as "...per miles squared"? My limited knowledge of English may be the cause of this unclear point...You still didn't explain (supposing you are able to) what does it mean for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Can you explain it or not?I should have thought that obvious.
I'm sorry that you were unfamiliar with the notation involved there. I hope you've educated yourself on the subject, in the meanwhile. If you don't express yourself correctly then it's a poor chance for me to understand what you really want to say.As for the formula, it is very ... useless, since you say nothing about the double integral, and what it means. How do you calculate a double integral using one dimension (from 0 to x1) ? Are you joking here or what? Could you at least show here how did you derive such a (ridiculous) formula?
I was unfamiliar with the notation used with double integrals, and so made an educated guess. The vertical distance (in inches) by which the light is bent is given by 4x2, where x is the horizontal distance travelled in miles and α is the smallest angle between the light ray and a horizontal plane at its origin.
Thanks. If I understood this correctly, for 10 miles this would give 400 inches, right?And since you are supposed to know how to use it, could you tell me what is the value you obtain for a horizontal distance of, say, 3 miles? It would be nice to show you (and Tom Bishop) how ridiculous your hypothesis is with some numbers, as you don't seem to get it only qualitatively...Over three miles, light will deviate upwards by 36 inches.
A valuable/(non ridiculous) alternative would be one that wouldn't hurt the FET, that is, one that would be compatible with it. You should remember that the FET is first and foremost a zetetic endeavor, based on observations! Given that the observations with telescopes as described by Parallax don't fit with the RE, they don't fit with your hypothesis either! If only you could understand that ...BTW, by constructing this ridiculous hypothesis about "bending light" , you're implicitly assuming that the observations agree with a "curved" shape of the Earth, which they don't! The restoring of the "sinked ship" image is not possible on the supposedly RE!
I know.Without an independent definition of "straight", all your hypothesis does is make the flatness indistinguishable (by direct observation) from the "curvature" of the RET. That means throwing away one of the most powerful arguments revealed by Parallax, who showed that the zoom does restore the "sinked ship" effect, which means that we CAN observe (with adequate optical instruments) the fact that the Earth is flat! That is why so many people try to discredit Parallax, because his argument is so powerful.
I see the hypothesis of bending light as an alternative to the work you are referencing, not an extension of it.
I'm not familiar with this kind of measurement: "...per mile per mile". What does it mean? Is that the same thing as "...per miles squared"? My limited knowledge of English may be the cause of this unclear point...
I'm sorry that you were unfamiliar with the notation involved there. I hope you've educated yourself on the subject, in the meanwhile. If you don't express yourself correctly then it's a poor chance for me to understand what you really want to say.
Now, for the new formula, there must be something missing because the angle "α" doesn't appear in it, but you make a comment about it. Can you verify it and give the complete form?
Thanks. If I understood this correctly, for 10 miles this would give 400 inches, right?
A valuable/(non ridiculous) alternative would be one that wouldn't hurt the FET, that is, one that would be compatible with it. You should remember that the FET is first and foremost a zetetic endeavor, based on observations! Given that the observations with telescopes as described by Parallax don't fit with the RE, they don't fit with your hypothesis either! If only you could understand that ...
Hmmm... Applying it for one mile then, the result is 4 inches. Yet you just said that for one mile the gradient increases by 8 inches per mile. So this "gradient" is not the deviation. It might help if you'd tell me what is the value of this "gradient" (or its increase ???) for 3 miles (or for 10 miles), so I can compare it with the 36 inches (or 400, respectively) of the deviation. :)I'm not familiar with this kind of measurement: "...per mile per mile". What does it mean? Is that the same thing as "...per miles squared"? My limited knowledge of English may be the cause of this unclear point...
It is an acceleration of sorts. For every mile the light travels, its gradient increases by 8 inches per mile.Thanks. If I understood this correctly, for 10 miles this would give 400 inches, right?
Yes.
All I am doing is broadening its scope - creating a derivative work, if you will. This can only strengthen it because in the event that one branch of FET is shown to be wrong, there will be others that may survive.Well, maybe it's useless to talk epistemology with you. You don't care for self/internal consistency. You think that having a theory where one can explain, simultaneously a thing and it's negative (the possibility of the restoring the sunken ships' image in this case) is a good thing. A broadening of sorts. :-X
Hmmm... Applying it for one mile then, the result is 4 inches. Yet you just said that for one mile the gradient increases by 8 inches per mile. So this "gradient" is not the deviation. It might help if you'd tell me what is the value of this "gradient" (or its increase ???) for 3 miles (or for 10 miles), so I can compare it with the 36 inches (or 400, respectively) of the deviation. :)
This is easily explained by the fact that light bends upwards.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/67jrxg.png)
What the hell.Obviously.
This is easily explained by the fact that light bends upwards.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/67jrxg.png)
What the hell.
This is easily explained by the fact that light bends upwards.
(http://i35.tinypic.com/67jrxg.png)
What the hell.
He's 5.