Light bends up, right?

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 08, 2010, 01:25:48 AM

The variation in atmospheric density at sea level is not directly related to it's altitude. It is directly related to the barometric pressure and atmospheric temperature.

The 'density altitude' (altitude at which the atmospheric density is the same as if it were at sea level under normal conditions) can vary by a couple of thousand feet in a given place. Up to 5000 feet in extreme changing conditions. (meaning if you stayed at an altitude of 1000 ft, and waited for the change in pressure and altitude to change by a significant amount, the air around would act as if it were either air under normal conditions at -1000ft or even 3000 ft. Quite a big difference).

This means that if light bending was due to atmospheric density, on a given day, the sun could appear in a completely different place (by quite a lot, one would think) than it would on another day because light would either be bend a hell of a lot more, or a hell of a lot less. Bendy light due to atmospheric density is far too inconsistent with everyday observations.

This is a completely different argument to the one you made in the OP. Have you made up your mind what the thread is about yet?

Quote from: spanner34.5 on March 08, 2010, 03:15:16 AM

True altitude, by definition is measured from mean sea level. How can there be a variation in mean sea level?

My point exactly. I just wanted to get 2fst4u to say it, so that he couldn't argue with it when I used it against him.

Mean is an average. When you ask him the specific sea level and how much it changes, and then switch to averages of that change you're just being an asshole.

And this isn't contradictory to the OP. It is a separate question altogether. In the OP I Stated that atmospheric density at MSL is the same provided equal pressure and temperature. This new discovery popped into my head afterwards - that the variation in density while still at sea level will screw up your perspective of the sun in the sky if density is the sole reason for bendy light.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 08, 2010, 10:59:07 AM

And this isn't contradictory to the OP. It is a separate question altogether. In the OP I Stated that atmospheric density at MSL is the same provided equal pressure and temperature. This new discovery popped into my head afterwards - that the variation in density while still at sea level will screw up your perspective of the sun in the sky if density is the sole reason for bendy light.

I didn't say it was contradictory to the OP. Regardless, variation in atmospheric density is not the cause of bendy light.

This is a completely different argument to the one you made in the OP. Have you made up your mind what the thread is about yet?

Quote from: Parsifal on March 08, 2010, 10:31:05 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 08, 2010, 10:59:07 AM

And this isn't contradictory to the OP. It is a separate question altogether. In the OP I Stated that atmospheric density at MSL is the same provided equal pressure and temperature. This new discovery popped into my head afterwards - that the variation in density while still at sea level will screw up your perspective of the sun in the sky if density is the sole reason for bendy light.

I didn't say it was contradictory to the OP. Regardless, variation in atmospheric density is not the cause of bendy light.

see:

Quote from: Parsifal on March 08, 2010, 04:10:30 AM

This is a completely different argument to the one you made in the OP. Have you made up your mind what the thread is about yet?

That's what I read this as.

In any case. Find me the thingy majigy that makes it bend, then.

I'm not here to do your personal bidding. So, no.

Bendy Light specialist

Quote from: Parsifal on March 09, 2010, 01:47:58 AM

I'm not here to do your personal bidding. So, no.

But:

Quote

Bendy Light specialist

You must know, so why is it so hard to tell us.

Quote from: Parsifal on March 09, 2010, 01:47:58 AM

I'm not here to do your personal bidding. So, no.

But:

Quote

Bendy Light specialist

You must know, so why is it so hard to tell us.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on March 09, 2010, 02:14:56 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 09, 2010, 01:47:58 AM

I'm not here to do your personal bidding. So, no.

But:

Quote

Bendy Light specialist

You must know, so why is it so hard to tell us.

The burden of proof lies at you. Yet again a thread is currently disproving the FE theory, unless you can come up with a valid counter argument.

Why must I know?

The burden of proof lies at you. Yet again a thread is currently disproving the FE theory, unless you can come up with a valid counter argument.

NEW TOPIC:

How does it bend?

go.

Man, when someone states they are a specialist, I never thought they meant that kind of special.

failure ensues.

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 02:38:06 PM

failure ensues.

What causes gravity to occur? It is still unknown.
Parsifal's response was valid.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 10, 2010, 02:32:32 PM

Quote from: 2fst4u on March 09, 2010, 02:38:06 PM

failure ensues.

What causes gravity to occur? It is still unknown.
Parsifal's response was valid.

Yeah, but we don't go around touting ourselves as "gravity specialists".
And at least gravity (or a force that creates the same effect) is observable. Bendy light is not observable. It is a conclusion by inference from an assumption.

It is a conclusion by inference from an assumption.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 10, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

It is a conclusion by inference from an assumption.

As is gravity.

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 10, 2010, 03:25:35 PM

It is a conclusion by inference from an assumption.

As is gravity.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 04:45:35 PM

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Why the fuck didn't I think of this?

This is true, you can hold a constant power setting, constant airspeed, therefore constant profile and have the vasi/papi give the same reading.
Mind if I make a topic on it?

The difference is a force that can be interpreted as gravity is detectable. You can feel it right now. Lie down on the floor and drop a brick on your testicle and then say there is no force in action. Whereas bendy light is undetectable and there is no known way to detect it without reference to an assumption.
You'll notice that I included the possibility of another force that creates the same effect in my post. You editing it out in your quote doesn't mean I didn't say it.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 04:45:35 PM

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Why the fuck didn't I think of this?

This is true, you can hold a constant power setting, constant airspeed, therefore constant profile and have the vasi/papi give the same reading.
Mind if I make a topic on it?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 10, 2010, 05:05:21 PM

The difference is a force that can be interpreted as gravity is detectable. You can feel it right now. Lie down on the floor and drop a brick on your testicle and then say there is no force in action. Whereas bendy light is undetectable and there is no known way to detect it without reference to an assumption.
You'll notice that I included the possibility of another force that creates the same effect in my post. You editing it out in your quote doesn't mean I didn't say it.

There is no way to detect gravity without reference to an assumption, either.

Quote from: Parsifal on March 10, 2010, 08:37:55 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 10, 2010, 05:05:21 PM

The difference is a force that can be interpreted as gravity is detectable. You can feel it right now. Lie down on the floor and drop a brick on your testicle and then say there is no force in action. Whereas bendy light is undetectable and there is no known way to detect it without reference to an assumption.
You'll notice that I included the possibility of another force that creates the same effect in my post. You editing it out in your quote doesn't mean I didn't say it.

There is no way to detect gravity without reference to an assumption, either.

Gravity is quite easy to detect...they are called tides.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 04:45:35 PM

Anyone ever give any thought to how difficult making a visual approach in an aircraft would be if light was "bendy"? I bet the VASI, much less ILS for an instrument landing, would end up being wildly inaccurate.

Why the fuck didn't I think of this?

This is true, you can hold a constant power setting, constant airspeed, therefore constant profile and have the vasi/papi give the same reading.
Mind if I make a topic on it?

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 10, 2010, 09:02:45 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 10, 2010, 08:37:55 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 10, 2010, 05:05:21 PM

The difference is a force that can be interpreted as gravity is detectable. You can feel it right now. Lie down on the floor and drop a brick on your testicle and then say there is no force in action. Whereas bendy light is undetectable and there is no known way to detect it without reference to an assumption.
You'll notice that I included the possibility of another force that creates the same effect in my post. You editing it out in your quote doesn't mean I didn't say it.

There is no way to detect gravity without reference to an assumption, either.

Gravity is quite easy to detect...they are called tides.

There is no way to detect gravity without reference to an assumption.