The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 08:55:36 AM
-
This is a poll for FE'ers. There seems to be disagreement as to whether there is a horizon, objects can disappear behind it, Rowbotham proved the world is flat, light can bend to create the illusion of a horizon, etc. I was hoping to determine what the general consensus is. If any FE theories require another option, please explain.
-
Rowbotham's predictions of the experiment were wrong to start with. He predicted that a 5' vessel would be 11' below the horizon after 6 miles, predicting a 16' curve in the earth after 6 miles. That's nearly 32 inches per mile! Even the math of the day was far beyond this kind of error.
Using the accepted circumference of the earth we know that the observable curvature is 7.6" per mile. So after 6 miles the 5" vessel should still be visible by nearly 2 feet.
Bendy light, FE, or RE; no matter the reason for the observation, his experiment was all messed up before he started. Plus he should have had more observers with him in the stream recording their findings also. And a better method for confirming the distance used. For all we know the distance could have been shorter than reported or he could have stated that the boat was in full view (when it was not) to support his own predictions. Plus every attempts to duplicate his experiments since have returned evidence contrary to what he reported.
-
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
-
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
Well, if you're waiting for the "bendy light" theory to be developed before you can explain the "sinking ship" effect, then you must believe in "bendy light" even though you don't understand how it could happen yet. If you have another explanation which you are using until "bendy light" presumably provides a more plausible explanation, let me know, and I will add it as an option.
-
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
He means: "We're still dreaming this one up, so don't offer your "opinion" until we give it to you. It makes us all look a bunch of kooks who can't even agree on which crazy stuff to say." This was a message from party leadership to the minions.
This poll is very relevant because it speaks to the internal hypocrisy that FET relies on to survive on this site.
Believing two contradicting ideas at the same time is called "compartmentalization." It's impossible to actually achieve without at least one diagnosable mental illness involving delusions. Usually, it's just a sign that the speaker is lying about what they believe (more common than most people think). If they are not lying, they are delusional.
It would be nice to see how each poster votes in this thread, but I doubt you will get many since stating one's belief here could then be quoted later and may not match the new theory that is being "developed." It's much safer for all the FE'ers to just wait until after they are told what to believe. That way, they seem to be more consistent and therefore more credible.
Remember in school when some people were only willing to voice their opinion after hearing others? Same thing applies here for sure.
-
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
He means: "We're still dreaming this one up, so don't offer your "opinion" until we give it to you. It makes us all look a bunch of kooks who can't even agree on which crazy stuff to say." This was a message from party leadership to the minions.
This poll is very relevant because it speaks to the internal hypocrisy that FET relies on to survive on this site.
Believing two contradicting ideas at the same time is called "compartmentalization." It's impossible to actually achieve without at least one diagnosable mental illness involving delusions. Usually, it's just a sign that the speaker is lying about what they believe (more common than most people think). If they are not lying, they are delusional.
It would be nice to see how each poster votes in this thread, but I doubt you will get many since stating one's belief here could then be quoted later and may not match the new theory that is being "developed." It's much safer for all the FE'ers to just wait until after they are told what to believe. That way, they seem to be more consistent and therefore more credible.
Remember in school when some people were only willing to voice their opinion after hearing others? Same thing applies here for sure.
I just have one question for you. Why are you on this site? You make huge assumptions about FE'ers, and have no logic to back it up. This is a forum for debating the shape of the earth, but you are a zealot who refuses to even consider the other side. Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed? No, a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
-
...a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
I, for one, would beg to differ. Skeptek is likely the most logical person on the site. This is a case of believing the best defense to go on the offensive.
-
I just have one question for you. Why are you on this site? You make huge assumptions about FE'ers, and have no logic to back it up. This is a forum for debating the shape of the earth, but you are a zealot who refuses to even consider the other side. Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed? No, a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
I would agree that reply was a little harsh. Disagreements among members does not necessarily mean any particular member believes in two contradicting theories depending on what they are responding to, though I wouldn't be shocked if someone here did. He makes some fair points, though. It is a little difficult to debate when your theory is under construction. Also, to say the poll is moot until someone develops their theory would suggest it is already accepted by the community before it is even finished.
-
I just have one question for you. Why are you on this site? You make huge assumptions about FE'ers, and have no logic to back it up. This is a forum for debating the shape of the earth, but you are a zealot who refuses to even consider the other side. Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed? No, a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
I would agree that reply was a little harsh. Disagreements among members does not necessarily mean any particular member believes in two contradicting theories depending on what they are responding to, though I wouldn't be shocked if someone here did. He makes some fair points, though. It is a little difficult to debate when your theory is under construction. Also, to say the poll is moot until someone develops their theory would suggest it is already accepted by the community before it is even finished.
You must agree that this poll isn't very important until Electromagnetic Acceleration is done being developed.
-
You must agree that this poll isn't very important until Electromagnetic Acceleration is done being developed.
No, I would not agree, although I'm not sure what you mean by "important". Regardless of what theories someone may be working on, if you believe the earth is flat, then you should have an explanation for the "sinking ship" effect. Would you suggest I add an option:
"there must be an explanation, I just don't know it yet"
-
You must agree that this poll isn't very important until Electromagnetic Acceleration is done being developed.
No, I would not agree, although I'm not sure what you mean by "important". Regardless of what theories someone may be working on, if you believe the earth is flat, then you should have an explanation for the "sinking ship" effect. Would you suggest I add an option:
"there must be an explanation, I just don't know it yet"
It is most likely how Rowbotham theorized, but EA (bendy light) may explain it, when it is fully developed. EA should not be truly considered until it is finished being developed.
-
It is most likely how Rowbotham theorized, but EA (bendy light) may explain it, when it is fully developed. EA should not be truly considered until it is finished being developed.
Why not?
Scientific debate demands that all possibilities be considered. To suggest that an idea should be kept out of the debate until someone agrees on what that idea actually is smacks of propaganda, not debate.
Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed?
I would never expect the general public to choose between ID and Evolution. The very fact that you presented this as your analogue is indicative of magical thinking and a lack of scientific basis to your belief system. I strongly suspect this is a tactic on your part to take this thread off topic with a provocative goad. It sorta worked on me... anyone smell a creationist? As if all FE'ers weren't. Pfff
-
It is most likely how Rowbotham theorized, but EA (bendy light) may explain it, when it is fully developed. EA should not be truly considered until it is finished being developed.
Why not?
Scientific debate demands that all possibilities be considered. To suggest that an idea should be kept out of the debate until someone agrees on what that idea actually is smacks of propaganda, not debate.
In a debate about which theory you believe is correct, why consider a theory that is not even finished? That's like asking what you would prefer to eat, a steak dinner (fully cooked), or a getting a raw hunk of meat, a knife, and some matches.
Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed?
I would never expect the general public to choose between ID and Evolution. The very fact that you presented this as your analogue is indicative of magical thinking and a lack of scientific basis to your belief system. I strongly suspect this is a tactic on your part to take this thread off topic with a provocative goad. It sorta worked on me... anyone smell a creationist? As if all FE'ers weren't. Pfff
Why would you expect people to pick between these two theories, but no those two theories? (ID and Evolution)
Fun fact-Most FE'ers are not creationists.
-
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
Who is doing the development and can anyone say how far advanced this development is? When are we likely to see a definitive statement that can be subjected to normal scientific examination?
-
Only REers vote in this poll.
-
When are we likely to see a definitive statement that can be subjected to normal scientific examination?
Never! They have resorted to name calling in this thread, this is often the last defence for a flat earther.
By your logic, Waste of Mind (or 'Waste of Oxygen'), we should believe the world is round until you can prove otherwise.
-
When are we likely to see a definitive statement that can be subjected to normal scientific examination?
Never! They have resorted to name calling in this thread, this is often the last defence for a flat earther.
By your logic, Waste of Mind (or 'Waste of Oxygen'), we should believe the world is round until you can prove otherwise.
clever
-
By your logic, Waste of Mind (or 'Waste of Oxygen'), we should believe the world is round until you can prove otherwise.
Not at all. Did you actually read his posts? By his logic, we should refrain from choosing between RET and FET until FET is fully developed.
-
Yes but the round earth is fairly well develloped and is currently the scientific consensus, therefore we should believe that.
I doubt your theories will ever be develloped and that was you will never have to respond to such questions.
-
Yes but the round earth is fairly well develloped and is currently the scientific consensus, therefore we should believe that.
Yes, let's blindly follow what we're taught. That's a great idea, what could possibly go wrong?
I doubt your theories will ever be develloped and that was you will never have to respond to such questions.
Did you forget a word or five?
-
I doubt your theories will ever be develloped and that means you will never have to respond to such questions.
Did you forget a word or five?
Typical, small typo which allows you to distract from the main bulk of the argument.
I believe what I am tought, I read a lot of science journals and they make sense all of which are based in our round earth. The nonsense that you all seem to spew out and want to believe is a joke in comparison and you have no evidence backing your claims.
Rowbotham was a joke and not a scientist. If you believe him you may aswell believe L Ron Hubbard (founder of scientology) as he spewed similar bouts of fiction.
-
Typical, small typo which allows you to distract from the main bulk of the argument.
I believe what I am tought, I read a lot of science journals and they make sense all of which are based in our round earth. The nonsense that you all seem to spew out and want to believe is a joke in comparison and you have no evidence backing your claims.
Rowbotham was a joke and not a scientist. If you believe him you may aswell believe L Ron Hubbard (founder of scientology) as he spewed similar bouts of fiction.
If that's how you feel, then why the heck are you posting in a forum for debating the shape of the Earth?
-
If that's how you feel, then why the fuck are you posting in a forum for debating the shape of the Earth?
Please refrain from using bad language, childeren can read these forums!
(Not that they would take a second look as they know the earth is not flat)
-
Please refrain from using bad language, childeren can read these forums!
(Not that they would take a second look as they know the earth is not flat)
You are not a moderator. Since the mods don't seem to have a problem with my language, I will continue to use it as I see fit.
-
The way this thread is going it seems like EA is the keys to the FE/RE castle. This EA idea is the one thing that FE needs to work. Without it there is no hope for FE. I am very interested to see how it comes out of the FE camp. I hope it can account for the major difference between observable horizon and sun light. Observable horizon light "bends/drops" at 7.6" per mile. Sun light would have to bend about 2600'/mile to make the spot effect that creates day and night on the FE.
So I guess and debat untill EA is figured out is kind of pointless.
-
The way this thread is going it seems like EA is the keys to the FE/RE castle. This EA idea is the one thing that FE needs to work. Without it there is no hope for FE. I am very interested to see how it comes out of the FE camp. I hope it can account for the major difference between observable horizon and sun light. Observable horizon light "bends/drops" at 7.6" per mile. Sun light would have to bend about 2600'/mile to make the spot effect that creates day and night on the FE.
So I guess and debat untill EA is figured out is kind of pointless.
The rate of curvature is not constant; it depends on the angle of the light rays to the horizontal. Brief preliminary calculations have shown that a single EA equation could account for both the horizon and the behaviour of the Sun; the finalised theory should confirm this when it is completed.
-
The way this thread is going it seems like EA is the keys to the FE/RE castle. This EA idea is the one thing that FE needs to work. Without it there is no hope for FE. I am very interested to see how it comes out of the FE camp. I hope it can account for the major difference between observable horizon and sun light. Observable horizon light "bends/drops" at 7.6" per mile. Sun light would have to bend about 2600'/mile to make the spot effect that creates day and night on the FE.
So I guess and debat untill EA is figured out is kind of pointless.
The rate of curvature is not constant; it depends on the angle of the light rays to the horizontal. Brief preliminary calculations have shown that a single EA equation could account for both the horizon and the behaviour of the Sun; the finalised theory should confirm this when it is completed.
Agreed.
The assumption so far is that it is some kind of curve correct? The light emitted from the sun down toward the disk is mostly perpendicular to its surface. Then the spot is created by the "bend" and light is almost parallel with the surface of the disk at the edge of the spot.
My point is that in the RE model this horizon effect is repeatable within a very small margin of error on any body of water on the earth. Also in the RE model light travels in straight lines unless changing media, or affected by major gravitational or EM forces. In the FE model there are two glaringly different ways in which observable light can behave.
Which Is why I am very interested to see this EA idea flushed out.
-
Agreed.
The assumption so far is that it is some kind of curve correct? The light emitted from the sun down toward the disk is mostly perpendicular to its surface. Then the spot is created by the "bend" and light is almost parallel with the surface of the disk at the edge of the spot.
I am still confident that the curvature is likely to take on the shape of a parabola, and when I put together documentation on EA theory during the winter break - I should be able to make a start on Sunday at the latest - I will devote the majority of it to this naturally simplistic shape. I will also briefly mention possible other shapes in an appendix, including Euclid's empirical formula, and discuss how plausible I consider them to be.
As anybody with a high school education in mathematics should be able to figure out, if you project the apparent height of a light ray in RET onto a Flat Earth, it traces out a secant curve - that is, the inverse of a cosine. However, I don't see that a natural force is likely to produce such a curve, and am hesitant to accept this shape just because it agrees with RE observations.
In the FE model there are two glaringly different ways in which observable light can behave.
Er, there are?
-
As anybody with a high school education in mathematics should be able to figure out, if you project the apparent height of a light ray in RET onto a Flat Earth, it traces out a secant curve - that is, the inverse of a cosine. However, I don't see that a natural force is likely to produce such a curve, and am hesitant to accept this shape just because it agrees with RE observations.
I'm not sure waht your getting at here. If you are talking about the actual wave form of a light ray: That form is consistent with all EM radiation and is a naturaly occuring form. no extra forces need to produce it. If I'm mising the point please tell me.
In the FE model there are two glaringly different ways in which observable light can behave.
I was referring to the difference between how observable ligt has to behave on the horizon and from the sun to make the FE model work. one is 7.6-ish inches/mile and the other is .487 miles/mile. That they curve makes them similar but the huge difference between the two examples is what I'm trying to highlight.
Er, there are?
[/quote]
-
I'm not sure waht your getting at here. If you are talking about the actual wave form of a light ray: That form is consistent with all EM radiation and is a naturaly occuring form. no extra forces need to produce it. If I'm mising the point please tell me.
No, what I am referring to is a projection of a straight-line ray tangent to the Round Earth onto a Flat Earth. Allow me to illustrate:
(http://i43.tinypic.com/zx19w2.png)
Here the black circle is the Round Earth, the red line is a light ray tangent to its surface, the blue arc is a variable distance along the surface, and the green line is the apparent height of the light ray at that distance. If we project this onto the FE model, like so:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2cxvs77.png)
The curve produced is a secant curve - that is, it is of the shape obtained by plotting y = sec x, or y = 1 / cos x.
I was referring to the difference between how observable ligt has to behave on the horizon and from the sun to make the FE model work. one is 7.6-ish inches/mile and the other is .487 miles/mile. That they curve makes them similar but the huge difference between the two examples is what I'm trying to highlight.
It is essentially the same behaviour. The light from the Sun is curving the exact same way as light from the horizon does when it gets near horizontal. Also, I think you are confusing curvature with gradient; inches per mile is a measure of gradient, not curvature.
-
No, what I am referring to is a projection of a straight-line ray tangent to the Round Earth onto a Flat Earth. Allow me to illustrate:
(http://i43.tinypic.com/zx19w2.png)
Here the black circle is the Round Earth, the red line is a light ray tangent to its surface, the blue arc is a variable distance along the surface, and the green line is the apparent height of the light ray at that distance. If we project this onto the FE model, like so:
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2cxvs77.png)
The curve produced is a secant curve - that is, it is of the shape obtained by plotting y = sec x, or y = 1 / cos x.
Perfect illustrations! I get what you were saying now. that is the real difference between the FE anf RE Light model in simplest form. For any FE Sun light to work light must behave like the 2nd illustration. Yes I am mixing up Gradiant and Curvature. My intent was to point out that at one mile from the observer there is a specific and predictable visual diference of 7.6-ish inches (Weather it is from bent light or curve of the earth) on the FE or RE. and it seems to me that number is far less than what it would take to make the FE sunlight model work. Again I say "seems like" and I know that is not a good leg to stand on in this kind of debate. I'll do some maths and see if I can work you model and my hunch together. it's possible we are debating to the same end.
-
Rowbotham proved the world is flat
Wait wait wait. Stop right there.
In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .
Where is this going?
-
Rowbotham proved the world is flat
Wait wait wait. Stop right there.
In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .
Where is this going?
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?
-
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?
I see no evidence that he was either.
-
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?
I see no evidence that he was either.
Lurk moar/use the search function.
-
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?
I see no evidence that he was either.
Lurk moar/use the search function.
PILLOW FIGHT!
(#8 on the "Tools of The Debate Impostor" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29812.msg720984#msg720984) list.)
Search reveals only a thread that confirms he was a fraud (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14238.0).
If you had anything, you'd have posted a link. Impostor.
-
you're calling historian Christine Garwood a liar and a poor historian. You're calling Rowbotham's family a bunch of liars who don't even know where he went to school. You wouldn't be convinced even if you saw Rowbotham's doctorate for yourself. It would be declared a "forgery."
-
You are correct. Lack of references does a poor historian make.
Didn't you say something about him being retarded too?
-
you're calling historian Christine Garwood a liar and a poor historian. You're calling Rowbotham's family a bunch of liars who don't even know where he went to school. You wouldn't be convinced even if you saw Rowbotham's doctorate for yourself. It would be declared a "forgery."
It is fair.
Since every piece of universally accepted science and witness for RE is thrown categorically out the window, alleging that Rowbotham (who largely did not understand the things he was making observations and predictions about. The grandfather of FET who could not get his Bedford level experiment to be confirmed or duplicated by anyone ever) was maybe not the scholar some claim him to be is pretty much in line with the standard FE defense tactic. To rely heavily on early industrial revolution era ideas as the main piece of supporting evidence, while outright dismissing all modern science as basic as circumnavigation of the globular earth, seems pretty outrageous. To discredit a scientist who was alone on most of his ideas in an era full of crazy unsubstantiated ideas, seems.... mundane.
Personally I dont doubt that the guy was a scholar of some sort and genuinely sought to better his understanding of the world around him. I also don't need to see his actual degree's or talk to a historian. His credibility is not suspect to me for his schooling. To me his credibility is suspect because no one has ever been able to duplicate his findings.
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
In the re-created experiment there wer many factors which make the findings in-conclusive at best, and RE evidence at worst.
1- 6 miles of distance from the observer will only create a 3.8' drop on the horizon based on the actual circumference of the earth. Their calculations predicted a much more significat drop. They predicted a 16' drop if I rmemeber properly.
2 - The observers lense was 24" from the water level. Increased elevation means increased distance to the horizon. This means that the bottom of the sheet used as a back drop had to only be 21.6" from the waters surface to be fully visible to the observer.
3 - In the report they calin that the sheet was "near" the surface of the water. Even if the sheet was 3" off the water or 36" inces off the water, the sheet would still appear to be at the waters surface and seen as a whole. There was no contrasting colors or markers to veryfy elevation under the sheet or how much of the sheet was visible.
-
Rowbotham proved the world is flat
Wait wait wait. Stop right there.
In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .
Where is this going?
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?
What the fuck does that mean? Aren't you the same queer that was bitching about proper grammar on some other thread--and even more ridiculously (if possible), correlating grammar with affluence?
What the fuck does: "[...]man that was a PhD" mean?
How the fuck can you "be a PhD"?
Did you try to say he had a PhD?
Even still, that's a retarded thing to say. What did he have PhD in? You don't just have "a PhD" with no fucking specificity. No, you don't get a PhD for being "cool", sorry. Good god.
On topic: Yes. Yes, I was calling him retarded. He espoused FE theory in a non-joking fashion. By definition, he was fucking hopelessly retarded. Sorry. I don't make the rules.
Oh and how about I pull the "FET stunt":
ZOMG LULZ U SED HES A MD DOCTER BUT U DIDNT SHOW PROOF SO THEREFORE UR LYING LOLOL
That is all.
-
Chill dude. All of that anger isn't good for you.
-
Keep it civil in the discussion fora, please.
-
Chill dude. All of that anger isn't good for you.
I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity. :-*
Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.
-
Chill dude. All of that anger isn't good for you.
I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity. :-*
Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.
Then really impress us by owing FET without resorting to indiscriminate use of the F bomb.
-
Chill dude. All of that anger isn't good for you.
I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity. :-*
Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.
Then really impress us by owing FET without resorting to indiscriminate use of the F bomb.
But my post wouldn't have been as hurtful without use of "the F bomb".
As for owning FET: Why would I want to? That would be like beating up a 12-year-old domestic-crime victim; it's already been done, probably thousands of times, and continuing to do so has no lasting or new effect.
-
Rowbotham had one apparent degree in medicine. This does NOT mean he was a scientist and looking at all the evidence (correspondence between each other) Eistein thought he was an idiot too.
He did NOT have a PhD and he did NOT have 20 degrees like some claim. All universities keep records of this stuff so it wouldn't be hard to find out and back up your claims but there is no evidence to support that he was more than a nutter.
-
"Bendy light", as far as I know, was a notion literally pulled out of thin air within the last two years or so. I don't believe that it explains any phenomena any better, and its proponents apparently think the Bedford Level Experiment concludes in favour of the Round Earth, a point which I heavily dispute. Count me out of the "Bendy light" lobby. From what I know of it, I reckon that it is pseudoscience of the highest degree.
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
-
"Bendy light", as far as I know, was a notion literally pulled out of thin air within the last two years or so. I don't believe that it explains any phenomena any better, and its proponents apparently think the Bedford Level Experiment concludes in favour of the Round Earth, a point which I heavily dispute.
The Bedford Level Experiment prooved that the earth had a curvature (Henry Yule Oldham experiment), this has been repeated many times with the same result.
I am fairly sure we were given a demonstration of this experiment in secondary school (dont remember where though).
The problem is that everyone has a bias, unfortunatly for you and any children you may have this is in favour of a flat earth.
-
The problem is that everyone has a bias, unfortunatly for you and any children you may have this is in favour of a flat earth.
Why would his children necessarily have the same bias he does?
-
The problem is that everyone has a bias, unfortunatly for you and any children you may have this is in favour of a flat earth.
Why would his children necessarily have the same bias he does?
Probably the same reason children tend to have the same religious beliefs as their parents. Children believe anything a parent tells them, and once they accept it as fact, they have a bias. Of course, not all parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs.
-
Probably the same reason children tend to have the same religious beliefs as their parents. Children believe anything a parent tells them, and once they accept it as fact, they have a bias. Of course, not all parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs.
Yes, and you're assuming he is the sort to do so, which may not be a valid assumption.
-
Why would you teach your child something you do not believe?
Why would you need to indoctrinate your child with any belief at all?
-
Probably the same reason children tend to have the same religious beliefs as their parents. Children believe anything a parent tells them, and once they accept it as fact, they have a bias. Of course, not all parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs.
Yes, and you're assuming he is the sort to do so, which may not be a valid assumption.
I assumed nothing of that sort. I was merely attempting to clarify what I believe danwood's arguments was, also noting that not all parents do that.
Now lets stop discussing parenting in this thread, as it is very irrelevant.
-
Now lets stop discussing parenting in this thread, as it is very irrelevant.
Yes, I agree. That's exactly what I was pointing out.
-
Why would his children necessarily have the same bias he does?
Typical robosteve.
Another useless comment on something that is obvious.
I agree this is off topic but parents teach their childeren about the world, therefore also parents teach children about their beliefs.
-
Now lets stop discussing parenting in this thread, as it is very irrelevant.
Yes, I agree. That's exactly what I was pointing out.
Actually you started the and continued the off topic discussion based on an off the cuff remark that clearly had no impact to this thread and was not intended to have any when written down in the first instance. Stop stirring shit you child.
-
Actually you started the and continued the off topic discussion based on an off the cuff remark that clearly had no impact to this thread and was not intended to have any when written down in the first instance. Stop stirring shit you child.
No. If I see someone write something that makes no sense, I will call them out on it.
-
You were simply trying to distract from the comments I made about The Bedford Level Experiment:
The Bedford Level Experiment proved that the earth had a curvature (Henry Yule Oldham experiment), this has been repeated many times with the same result.
I am fairly sure we were given a demonstration of this experiment in secondary school (dont remember where though).
To be honest I'm surprised you didnt catch me out of spelling 'proved' wrong.
-
You were simply trying to distract from the comments I made about The Bedford Level Experiment:
The Bedford Level Experiment proved that the earth had a curvature (Henry Yule Oldham experiment), this has been repeated many times with the same result.
I am fairly sure we were given a demonstration of this experiment in secondary school (dont remember where though).
To be honest I'm surprised you didnt catch me out of spelling 'proved' wrong.
I'm not trying to distract from anything. If what you say is true, it simply provides evidence for EA theory.
-
Does it matter how we got off topic? Can we go back to talking about Rowbotham vs bendy light?
In my previous posts I showed how Rowbotham was in error and how his peer reviewed BLE was flawed. Thus making a prety strong case against the basic Ideas of a FE.
Though If I were a modern FE proponent I would not bother with any of Rowbothams ideas any way. There are far too many holes in his thories, predictions, and findings to base and FE ideas on.
If I were an FE guy I would have to vote that light bends and rowbotham did not prove anything. But I'm a Re guy and not invited to that poll. nor is there a satisfactory answer for me to vote on anyway.
-
I'm not trying to distract from anything. If what you say is true, it simply provides evidence for EA theory.
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.
-
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.
Proof?
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.
For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.
For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.
Agreed. The BLEis in now way proof of a flat earth. At best it confirms curvature or gives evidence for EA.
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.
For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.
Agreed. The BLEis in now way proof of a flat earth. At best it confirms curvature or gives evidence for EA.
An argument could easily be made for the validity of Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham bedford experiments.
-
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.
For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.
Agreed. The BLEis in now way proof of a flat earth. At best it confirms curvature or gives evidence for EA.
An argument could easily be made for the validity of Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham bedford experiments.
Again.... totaly agreed. Every attempt at duplicationg Rowbothams flat earth findings has turned up evidence for the round earth or possible EA. I only state posible EA due to FE own admission that this is a theory in development at this time. As far as I am concerned these experiments are prety conclusive evidence for a RE. I'll glady re-view my judgment when a more refined EA is presented. As I wuold expect anyone to do when new evidence is presented.
-
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.
Proof?
Good luck convincing anyone that it's possible to see or with current techniques, measure light disappear into a black hole. There's a reason they are called black holes you know. At the minute, black holes are nothing but an extreme likely theory - thus, the only places where light can be confirmed to mathematically bend are also theoretical.
Just because he can't prove his statement mathematically (it's unreasonable to ask anyone to in all honesty, it's an accepted theory in the scientific community however, which you should know if you are so god damned clever), doesn't mean that light can bend as willy nilly as this thread alludes to in places.
Arrogance is one thing - you Robosteve, are outright annoying. I would rather argue with Tom Bishop than you.
-
Good luck convincing anyone that it's possible to see or with current techniques, measure light disappear into a black hole. There's a reason they are called black holes you know. At the minute, black holes are nothing but an extreme likely theory - thus, the only places where light can be confirmed to mathematically bend are also theoretical.
Just because he can't prove his statement mathematically (it's unreasonable to ask anyone to in all honesty, it's an accepted theory in the scientific community however, which you should know if you are so god damned clever), doesn't mean that light can bend as willy nilly as this thread alludes to in places.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want proof that light bends in a strong gravitational field; I'm well aware of this theory and accept it just as most of the rest of the scientific community does. I want him to provide some sort of evidence that light cannot bend in any other way.
Arrogance is one thing - you Robosteve, are outright annoying. I would rather argue with Tom Bishop than you.
Then why respond to my posts?
-
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want proof that light bends in a strong gravitational field; I'm well aware of this theory and accept it just as most of the rest of the scientific community does. I want him to provide some sort of evidence that light cannot bend in any other way.
Yes, you should have been a lot clearer.
You know full well it can't (bar possibly seriously extreme EM fields, which the earth doesn't have as pretty much no electronic device would work), you're just being a troll.
Then why respond to my posts?
Because I find it entertaining that a 19 year old really thinks he is as clever as he acts.
I do wonder - are you RE or FE...?
-
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.
Proof?
Proof is nice word. I also want a proof that EA bends light and the way to detect it. EA is still the more mystical thing as gravity or gravitational force because you can't measure or detect the EA in any way.
-
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want proof that light bends in a strong gravitational field; I'm well aware of this theory and accept it just as most of the rest of the scientific community does. I want him to provide some sort of evidence that light cannot bend in any other way.
Well no-one has been able to bend light, light is after all electromagnetic radiation which is known to travel straight. This is how radio and tv is transmitted and we all know what happens when something tall gets in the way of you and the transmitter that could be thousands of miles away.
When you view light waves they always travel in a straight line, for example when light is refracted through water its not bent but its wavelength has changed so it changes direction but its fundemental frequency stays constant and is still seen as a straight line.
If you look at lasers they always travel straight, you could shine a laser for miles and it would still be straight. If light didnt travel in straight lines fiber optics wouldnt work.
Proove to me light bends and you will change my understanding, but you wont be able to as it doesnt bend anywhere!! (except theorised distortion through space-time fluctuations)
I believe robotsteve that you have no knowledge about anything and are just a troll.
Please finish school and then maybe we will listen to you.
-
You know full well it can't (bar possibly seriously extreme EM fields, which the earth doesn't have as pretty much no electronic device would work), you're just being a troll.
This is your proof?
Proof is nice word. I also want a proof that EA bends light and the way to detect it. EA is still the more mystical thing as gravity or gravitational force because you can't measure or detect the EA in any way.
EA theory is one explanation for the horizon. The most common alternative theory is a Round Earth. As yet, I do not know of any practical means with which to differentiate between the two.
Well no-one has been able to bend light, light is after all electromagnetic radiation which is known to travel straight. This is how radio and tv is transmitted and we all know what happens when something tall gets in the way of you and the transmitter that could be thousands of miles away.
"No-one has been able to bend light" = "light can't bend"? Also, light doesn't just bend around objects to get to you; EA theory, when it is completed, will describe a very well-defined curvature.
When you view light waves they always travel in a straight line, for example when light is refracted through water its not bent but its wavelength has changed so it changes direction but its fundemental frequency stays constant and is still seen as a straight line.
I am familiar with the concept of refraction, thanks.
If you look at lasers they always travel straight, you could shine a laser for miles and it would still be straight.
And I suppose you saying so makes it true?
If light didnt travel in straight lines fiber optics wouldnt work.
Rubbish. Have you studied optics at all?
-
Proof is nice word. I also want a proof that EA bends light and the way to detect it. EA is still the more mystical thing as gravity or gravitational force because you can't measure or detect the EA in any way.
EA theory is one explanation for the horizon. The most common alternative theory is a Round Earth. As yet, I do not know of any practical means with which to differentiate between the two.
Yes, you do. You can't say that you don't because there is handful of methods brought up in this forum and surely teachers have explained some methods in your schools(if not, my bad then). 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.
"No-one has been able to bend light" = "light can't bend"? Also, light doesn't just bend around objects to get to you; EA theory, when it is completed, will describe a very well-defined curvature.
There is quite simple experiment with laser and mirrors which you can do and see if light really bends. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27667.msg652949#msg652949 . So, you can concoct your equations but you can't never show it practically.
-
Rubbish. Have you studied optics at all?
Yes and infact I use them and have studied them in University.
Fiberoptics work on a basis of total internal reflection, the light source (lasers usually) is pointed down the cable and reflected internally and comes out the other end.
Fibers can be up to around 17KM in length and maintain very high bitrates (> 10 Gb/s) and maintain quite low power consumption. If light were to bend at all within this cable the signal could end up bouncing in the wrong direction and the signal lost. High bit rates would not be possible in this situation.
You sir are obviously the one who has no idea about light or fiber optics, go back to school.
-
Yes, you do. You can't say that you don't because there is handful of methods brought up in this forum and surely teachers have explained some methods in your schools(if not, my bad then). 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.
There is quite simple experiment with laser and mirrors which you can do and see if light really bends. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27667.msg652949#msg652949 . So, you can concoct your equations but you can't never show it practically.
They would likely have used one of two methods to construct such an accurately straight device; one, they built it according to the Earth's surface and/or gravitational field, accounting for the curvature of the Earth; or two, they measured its straightness using light rays. If the Earth is flat and light bends, both would have resulted in a curved apparatus. Indeed, the picture posted to show that it is perfectly straight uses visible light as evidence - all that really proves is that the accelerator is the same shape traced out by a light ray, whatever that may be.
-
Yes and infact I use them and have studied them in University.
Fiberoptics work on a basis of total internal reflection, the light source (lasers usually) is pointed down the cable and reflected internally and comes out the other end.
Fibers can be up to around 17KM in length and maintain very high bitrates (> 10 Gb/s) and maintain quite low power consumption. If light were to bend at all within this cable the signal could end up bouncing in the wrong direction and the signal lost. High bit rates would not be possible in this situation.
You sir are obviously the one who has no idea about light or fiber optics, go back to school.
I am aware of how fibre optics work, thanks. If your reasoning were at all true, fibre optics would fail as soon as one bent the optic fibre even slightly.
-
I am aware of how fibre optics work, thanks. If your reasoning were at all true, fibre optics would fail as soon as one bent the optic fibre even slightly.
(http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/facepalm.jpg)
bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce, bend optic a bit for a laugh, bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce....SCHWING badass fast data STILL comes out the other end. That's how fibre optics work.
-
There is quite simple experiment with laser and mirrors which you can do and see if light really bends.
Bouncing a laser between mirrors should be a good way to prove/disprove bendy light, right?
You can see if a laser would bend according to EA by bouncing it back and forth between two long mirrors that are far apart. If you place the mirrors 50 meters apart perfectly perpendicular to a flat surface, position the laser horizontally, then bounce it back and forth at least 16 times, the beam should have decreased in height by 0.2 meters. If someone manages to produce a series of horizontal beams with identical height in such an experiment, would that prove EA wrong, or is it more complex than I assumed?
-
bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce, bend optic a bit for a laugh, bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce....SCHWING badass fast data STILL comes out the other end. That's how fibre optics work.
Uh, was that English?
You can see if a laser would bend according to EA by bouncing it back and forth between two long mirrors that are far apart. If you place the mirrors 50 meters apart perfectly perpendicular to a flat surface, position the laser horizontally, then bounce it back and forth at least 16 times, the beam should have decreased in height by 0.2 meters. If someone manages to produce a series of horizontal beams with identical height in such an experiment, would that prove EA wrong, or is it more complex than I assumed?
First of all, how do you propose to ensure that two mirrors so far apart are perfectly parallel? Second of all, how did you calculate the figure of 0.2 metres?
-
First of all, how do you propose to ensure that two mirrors so far apart are perfectly parallel? Second of all, how did you calculate the figure of 0.2 metres?
Yes, I realized that it would be very difficult to get the mirrors perfectly parralel. However, you can make small corrections until the beams are all perfectly horizontal. This would not be possible with bendy light. To prove bendy light correct, even if you have trouble getting the mirrors perfectly parralel, you should be able to demonstrate some curvature. Now, for my calculation, which I believe is correct, and you're more than welcome to suggest a better one.
r = radius of earth = 6,371,000 meters
d=distance travelled by light = 1600 meters (back and forth 16 times)
c=change in height
r2 + d2 = (c+r)2
Solve for c. I don't know how to do square roots in bbcode, so I trust you can simplify the equation yourself.
-
bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce, bend optic a bit for a laugh, bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce....SCHWING badass fast data STILL comes out the other end. That's how fibre optics work.
Uh, was that English?
It was a textual rendition of TIR as a bit of a joke to lighten the mood...someone had to do it since you seem to be the sternest person on the internet that I've ever had the displeasure of coming into contact with.
You clearly have no sense on humour on top of your apparently lack of emotion or soul - quite unfortunate. Not sure how I'd cope personally.
Also - you forgot to answer, are you RE or FE?
-
Yes, I realized that it would be very difficult to get the mirrors perfectly parralel. However, you can make small corrections until the beams are all perfectly horizontal. This would not be possible with bendy light.
You would not be able to distinguish between parallel mirrors with straight light rays and curved light with mirrors perpendicular to the light itself at two different locations. So yes, you could produce the same effect if light rays are curved.
r = radius of earth = 6,371,000 meters
d=distance travelled by light = 1600 meters (back and forth 16 times)
c=change in height
r2 + d2 = (c+r)2
Solve for c. I don't know how to do square roots in bbcode, so I trust you can simplify the equation yourself.
This is how much the apparent elevation of the light ray would increase in RET; it does not necessarily correspond to the offset caused by EA theory under FET.
It was a textual rendition of TIR as a bit of a joke to lighten the mood...someone had to do it since you seem to be the sternest person on the internet that I've ever had the displeasure of coming into contact with.
You clearly have no sense on humour on top of your apparently lack of emotion or soul - quite unfortunate. Not sure how I'd cope personally.
Sorry, I assumed you were attempting to convey a point. You'd be surprised by how many people on here actually do use that sort of language when debating.
Also - you forgot to answer, are you RE or FE?
I didn't forget to answer, I chose not to.
-
I am aware of how fibre optics work, thanks. If your reasoning were at all true, fibre optics would fail as soon as one bent the optic fibre even slightly.
If you were aware of how fiber optics work then you wouldn't have said that. (thansk julian for the amusing picture, well summed up)
The simple fact they work over more than 6 miles completely disproves "bendy light" as if light were to bend as much as 1um (micro-meter) the beam would get distorted.
You are basically an idiot, I have a degree in electronics engineering and several of my modules included optics and fiber optic communication. You obviously have no idea about fiber optics.
Just be quiet troll and leave the discussions to the grown-ups.
-
You would not be able to distinguish between parallel mirrors with straight light rays and curved light with mirrors perpendicular to the light itself at two different locations. So yes, you could produce the same effect if light rays are curved.
If light were to travel in a curve, then it would be impossible to form a straight line in the experiment. It would keep increasing in height the further the light went. The rate at which it increases would increase with distance as well, if it were to create the illusion of a curved earth surface. You could angle the mirrors to make one segment between the mirrors straight, but you couldn't compensate for a growing height increase.
Actually, now that I think about it, you might be right. The mirrors not being parallel could increasingly change the direction of the laser with each bounce, potentially compensating for the curvature of the light. The experiment would require perfectly parallel mirrors. Any ideas to achieve this? Would measuring the distance from the mirror tops and bottoms be sufficient?
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.
This is how much the apparent elevation of the light ray would increase in RET; it does not necessarily correspond to the offset caused by EA theory under FET.
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?
-
A quick question FEM people.
If light bends how can you be sure where the sun, moon, antimoon, and the stars(/all other things in the sky), actually are?
If light bends then your measurements (if thats what they are) of the sun and everything will be way off.
-
If you were aware of how fiber optics work then you wouldn't have said that. (thansk julian for the amusing picture, well summed up)
The simple fact they work over more than 6 miles completely disproves "bendy light" as if light were to bend as much as 1um (micro-meter) the beam would get distorted.
You are not even using proper units for curvature. A bend of 1 µm 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?
You are basically an idiot, I have a degree in electronics engineering and several of my modules included optics and fiber optic communication. You obviously have no idea about fiber optics.
Just be quiet troll and leave the discussions to the grown-ups.
I don't give two shits what degrees you do or do not have.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Simply pulling on it to ensure it is taut should provide the required accuracy.
I disagree; gravitation will cause it to sag.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
-
I disagree; gravitation will cause it to sag.
Are you sure?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If the light were to 'bend' it would reflect off the internal wall at a greater angle
A greater angle than what?
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
Oddly the 90* is the angle of the cable.
It can be used to describe an angle of light.
You obviously havent studied optics.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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*)
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?
-
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.
(1 radian = 180*)
lol
Where do you study?
University of Sydney.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
But you guys are claiming that there is a funtional difference between:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/enigmazv/fibreoptics.jpg)
Which I have a hard time believing.
Also, I appologise for the terrible diagram.
-
A light signal within a fiber optic will bounce off the edges, its designed to at certain angles and the cables and light you use defines how much of a bend the cable can have.
I think you might be missing the point that the light doesn't travel straight down the fiber it bounces of the edges at regular intervals.
If the light changes angle (as in 'bendy light') there would be no way that current fibers would work as the angle of reflection would change and the absorption rate goes up. The bendy light's angle would gradually reach the point of no return and the signal would be useless.
-
And would signal degradation happen sooner in a straight cable where the light bends at a rate which approximates the curvature of the Earth, or in a cable whose curve approximates the curvature of the Earth with 'normal' light? Also, how do you know?
-
Read up on TIR its not the harest thing to explain but its becoming a pain in this thread.
Basically the light in a fiber bounces of the edges at angles whcih cause very little signal degradation even in a curved cable. You have to remember the fiber is extremely small so even a bend to the curvature of the earth wouldn't affect it. The thing that would affect it is a variable angle of reflection that the bendy light would create.
Also what direction would the light bend in down a fiber?
If you had to calculate the bend in it would be nice to know which direction to go.
-
You have to remember the fiber is extremely small so even bendy light approximating the curvature of the Earth wouldn't affect it. The thing that would affect it is a variable angle of reflection that a cable following the curvature of the Earth would create.
Fixed.
Or rather, the two would be equivalent.
-
You have to remember the fiber is extremely small so even bendy light approximating the curvature of the Earth wouldn't affect it. The thing that would affect it is a variable angle of reflection that a cable following the curvature of the Earth would create.
Fixed.
Or rather, the two would be equivalent.
I'm sorry mate, you are way off here. Fibre optical physics relies massively on straight light.
The curves cited wouldn't produce your diagrams - quite simply, if light bended that much on a regular occurence, what you and I see as a straight door frame, from a physical matter perspective, wouldn't be straight at all. Light bounces many millions of times down a length of fibre optic - and we are suggesting deviation (completely hypothetically as no serious values have been decided on to my knowledge? I will happily stand corrected here) of around a micrometre per metre or 2 of distance travelled. On that basis, it probably would take a fairly large distance, a few miles maybe, to properly see the effects described. Since we know that fibre optic cabling is used for many thousands of miles around the earth to carry our communications - we can deduce light surely cannot bend even on a really ridiculously small level.
I think there are a couple of people here that really need to read up on fibre optics - including incidence angles, critical angles of a fibre optic boundary, total internal reflection and a culmination of all these topics which is the acceptance cone of a fibre optic. Most importantly, bending light would violate the concept of an acceptance cone INSIDE the fibre optic; which anyone with an ounce of knowledge on fibre optics, know cannot be done. And do y'all know why? Light is straight peoples...that's the end of it.
-
I disagree; gravitation will cause it to sag.
How much error do you suggest would result from gravitation causing a tape measure to sag over 50 meters while being pulled taut? Can you suggest a better experiment? This is your hypothesis after all. Are you counting on your hypothesis never being proven or disproven in a way that satisfies you?
By the way, the error tolerance for the mirrors being parallel which I calculated was incorrect. I believe I know a correct way, but don't have the time now.
-
Robocock has shut up?
-
How much error do you suggest would result from gravitation causing a tape measure to sag over 50 meters while being pulled taut? Can you suggest a better experiment? This is your hypothesis after all. Are you counting on your hypothesis never being proven or disproven in a way that satisfies you?
By the way, the error tolerance for the mirrors being parallel which I calculated was incorrect. I believe I know a correct way, but don't have the time now.
I will attempt to suggest a better experiment when the theory is complete and I know exactly what I am testing for. The amount of error would depend on how strongly you were pulling it taut.
Now, on the topic of fibre optics: can anyone arguing aganist their functionality with curved light post a diagram indicating why you think the angle of incidence would decrease from one reflection to the next? It's very hard to debate with you when you aren't properly explaining your reasoning for this.
-
Now, on the topic of fibre optics: can anyone arguing aganist their functionality with curved light post a diagram indicating why you think the angle of incidence would decrease from one reflection to the next? It's very hard to debate with you when you aren't properly explaining your reasoning for this.
I don't think that's possible - the amount of reflections that would need to be drawn make it a bit of a difficult one from a diagrammatical point of view.
Basically bending light over the course of one reflection would alter the incidence angle ever so slightly - you can't disagree with that. Combine that into the many millions of reflections that occur down a fibre optic - the angle (if my thought patterns are correct) of incidence would increase on one side of the optic (assuming we are using a 2D model here), and then decrease on the other boundary of the optic (depending on the direction that light apparently bends in). Eventually, one of these will go past the angle of incidence (probably the latter) and then escape the fibre.
If I knew WHAT light bended towards (i.e. what direction), it would make this hypothesis far easier to explain and/or draw.
I don't know how I can put it any clearer for you Robosteve. IF you have taken university level education in fibre optics, you would know without any doubt, how important straight light is to maintain minimum attenuation which is vital to fibre optics working. I just don't understand how you could conceive otherwise.
-
IF you have taken university level education in fibre optics, you would know without any doubt, how important straight light is to maintain minimum attenuation which is vital to fibre optics working. I just don't understand how you could conceive otherwise.
Julian he hasn't, he is just a troll.
-
I don't think that's possible - the amount of reflections that would need to be drawn make it a bit of a difficult one from a diagrammatical point of view.
Show what causes the angle of incidence to go from θ to θ + δθ, then.
Basically bending light over the course of one reflection would alter the incidence angle ever so slightly - you can't disagree with that.
Depends on the specific circumstances.
Eventually, one of these will go past the angle of incidence (probably the latter) and then escape the fibre.
Why?
If I knew WHAT light bended towards (i.e. what direction), it would make this hypothesis far easier to explain and/or draw.
Up.
-
Show what causes the angle of incidence to go from θ to θ + δθ, then.
Basically bending light over the course of one reflection would alter the incidence angle ever so slightly - you can't disagree with that.
Depends on the specific circumstances.
What circumstances? You complain about people not explaining themselves, yet you are as much a culprit as anyone else. Does light only sometimes bend then?
I will do a diagram later but to be honest I'm reluctant to spend the time on someone I think could be trolling for the sake of it.
-
Up.
What makes it bend only up?
And up with respect to what? You need to specify a reference angle!
We need answers to these questions robocock otherwise we cannot draw any realistic diagrams.
-
What circumstances? You complain about people not explaining themselves, yet you are as much a culprit as anyone else. Does light only sometimes bend then?
Light always bends, but if it reflects off the upper boundary between the materials, and then curves to go back up again before it reaches the lower boundary, the angle of incidence will be left unaltered. It is only if it makes it the whole way across the fibre that the angle of incidence will change. (Assuming a straight fibre, of course.)
I will do a diagram later but to be honest I'm reluctant to spend the time on someone I think could be trolling for the sake of it.
I assure you, as much as I have trolled in the past, I truly believe that you are wrong in this matter and would like to know why you think the angle of incidence would decrease.
What makes it bend only up?
Dark Energy.
And up with respect to what? You need to specify a reference angle!
The more you say shit like this, the more convinced I become that you lack even a high school education in geometry.
-
The more you say shit like this, the more convinced I become that you lack even a high school education in geometry.
I was repeating what you said earlier you plank!
-
I was repeating what you said earlier you plank!
Please show me where I said that. Really, I'd love to know.
-
You said that when we were talking about bends.
Your inferior brain couldn't handle a simple bend so you started talking nonsense about reference angles and calculus (of which had no reference to the conversation).
What makes it bend only up?
Dark Energy.
Can you prove me some dark energy?
-
You said that when we were talking about bends.
Your inferior brain couldn't handle a simple bend so you started talking nonsense about reference angles and calculus (of which had no reference to the conversation).
Can you quote me a specific post? I don't remember saying that at all.
Can you prove me some dark energy?
Can you prove me some gravity?
-
I will attempt to suggest a better experiment when the theory is complete and I know exactly what I am testing for. The amount of error would depend on how strongly you were pulling it taut.
I now calculate that the error required for 2 meter tall mirrors 50 meters apart to offset the hypothesized bending of light, assuming it is consistent with the observed curvature of earth in RET, would be 0.1413 cm. The required precision would make my experiment impossible with a tape measure.
Your hypothesis doesn't become a theory until you not only suggest an experiment, but it is performed and supports your hypothesis. Since you still have to verify how much light bends to create the illusion of a round earth, and you don't seem to have any ideas for an experiment, I don't expect you to complete your theory any time soon.
-
Can you prove me some gravity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
This proves nothing except that masses distort spacetime and possess inertia.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
This proves nothing except that masses distort spacetime and possess inertia.
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.
-
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.
The Earth only appears to attract objects in our frame of reference, because we have a limited view of the Universe. Accepting it as a real force is analogous to accepting red and green as the same colour because colour blind people can't tell the difference.
-
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.
The Earth only appears to attract objects in our frame of reference, because we have a limited view of the Universe. Accepting it as a real force is analogous to accepting red and green as the same colour because colour blind people can't tell the difference.
I cannot prove what causes gravity, just that it exists.
I can measure the gravity around the earth and it changes depending on altitude.
If we believe the UA myth then this wouldn t happen as everything would travel at the same rate.
-
I cannot prove what causes gravity, just that it exists.
How?
I can measure the gravity around the earth and it changes depending on altitude.
If we believe the UA myth then this wouldn t happen as everything would travel at the same rate.
Incorrect.
-
I cannot prove what causes gravity, just that it exists.
How?
I can measure the gravity around the earth and it changes depending on altitude.
If we believe the UA myth then this wouldn t happen as everything would travel at the same rate.
Incorrect.
Why are you deliberately derailing this thread?
This thread is about Rowbotham and bendy light. Rowbotham was right since he performed the experiments. All your "frame of reference nonsense" is just that. It belongs in complete nonsense.
-
Why are you deliberately derailing this thread?
I am discussing potential sources of error in cdenley's experiment; for some reason, REers feel the need to leap on my use of the word "gravitation". It is they who are derailing the thread.
This thread is about Rowbotham and bendy light. Rowbotham was right since he performed the experiments. All your "frame of reference nonsense" is just that. It belongs in complete nonsense.
People who perform experiments are always right? Shit, I better perform an experiment, and fast!
Also, physics is nothing without the concept of frames of reference. Please come back when you have some basic knowledge of the subject.
-
People who perform experiments are always right? Shit, I better perform an experiment, and fast!
Also, physics is nothing without the concept of frames of reference. Please come back when you have some basic knowledge of the subject.
No. "Frame of reference" means nothing. Please come back when
1) you have performed an experiment
2) you stop babbling nonsense
-
"Frame of reference" means nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference)
Doesn't look like nothing to me.
-
"Frame of reference" means nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference)
Doesn't look like nothing to me.
Anyone can write a wikipedia page. Show me the evidence that "Frames of reference" exist.
-
Anyone can write a wikipedia page. Show me the evidence that "Frames of reference" exist.
Look at a stationary object. Now start walking, and it appears to be moving. You are now in a different frame of reference, which affects your observations of your surroundings.
-
Anyone can write a wikipedia page. Show me the evidence that "Frames of reference" exist.
Look at a stationary object. Now start walking, and it appears to be moving. You are now in a different frame of reference, which affects your observations of your surroundings.
No it did not appear to be moving. I appeared to be moving.
Please do not continue to derail this thread. If you want to talk about imaginary things like unicorns, cyclops and frames of reference then open another thread.
-
No it did not appear to be moving. I appeared to be moving.
Really? You changed position relative to yourself? How did you manage that one?
-
Despite being told numerous times you are still trying to derail this thread.
I clearly need to raise this with a mod.
-
Despite being told numerous times you are still trying to derail this thread.
I clearly need to raise this with a mod.
I am not derailing anything, merely attempting to correct your hopeless understanding - or lack thereof - of physics, that you may better appreciate the discussion here. If you are not willing to educate yourself in terms of simple concepts in science, you have no place posting in a scientific debate forum. Please leave now.
-
I don't need to educate myself the facts are clear. Stop derailing threads with gibberish.
-
I don't need to educate myself the facts are clear. Stop derailing threads with gibberish.
I'm just about sick of you. Fuck off.
-
Reported for abusive language. Enjoy your ban.
-
Reported for abusive language. Enjoy your ban.
You clearly are the troll, for denying the existence of reference frames to start a reaction. Enjoy your ban.
-
Reported for abusive language. Enjoy your ban.
You clearly are the troll, for denying the existence of reference frames to start a reaction. Enjoy your ban.
That was not fair Jack. Is ignorance a banable offense now?
-
Reported for abusive language. Enjoy your ban.
You clearly are the troll, for denying the existence of reference frames to start a reaction. Enjoy your ban.
That was not fair Jack. Is ignorance a banable offense now?
If you don't know reference points, than you shouldn't even be allowed on a computer.
-
That was not fair Jack. Is ignorance a banable offense now?
No, but blatant trolling is.
-
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.
Don't bother. They have made agreement in this forum not to use term gravity as all other physicist use. bowler tried to clarify things up in Gravity thread(you may start reading from page 46) but no use. Couple of direct links to his messages
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.msg614828#msg614828
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.msg615894#msg615894
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.msg627319#msg627319
-
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.
The Earth only appears to attract objects in our frame of reference, because we have a limited view of the Universe. Accepting it as a real force is analogous to accepting red and green as the same colour because colour blind people can't tell the difference.
Whether it is accepted as a "real force" or not, the experiment proved gravitation (distortion of spacetime) does exist. Are you arguing that from another frame of reference, the distortion of spacetime might not exist, so gravitation/gravity might not be real even though we can prove otherwise in our frame of reference?
-
What circumstances? You complain about people not explaining themselves, yet you are as much a culprit as anyone else. Does light only sometimes bend then?
Light always bends, but if it reflects off the upper boundary between the materials, and then curves to go back up again before it reaches the lower boundary, the angle of incidence will be left unaltered. It is only if it makes it the whole way across the fibre that the angle of incidence will change. (Assuming a straight fibre, of course.
You're talking an alteration of direction of around 45 degrees there in the distance in the order of nanometres...! You can't be serious? On top of that you have no assurance that the bend will be in such a way that the light changes direction so much it overshoots the critical angle...?
What you and I see as a straight ruler, would not be straight in a composition of matter sense if light bent that much in that little distance - it would not feel straight to our senses either.
I'm arguing a more plausible bend (not that I believe it at all) which will alter the incidence angles a little bit every time it reflects, and after enough reflections it would eclipse the critical angle...
-
You're talking an alteration of direction of around 45 degrees there in the distance in the order of nanometres...!
No, I am not.
-
You're talking an alteration of direction of around 45 degrees there in the distance in the order of nanometres...!
No, I am not.
Even if I have my numbers wrong - 20 degrees in the order of centimetres (which is even more ridiculous), what you and I perceive by touch as a straight line, would appear completely different from a light perspective.
If you are "not" suggesting the changes I understand to be what you are insinuating - what on earth ARE you insinuating then?
You play your cards very close to your chest - constantly reluctant to explain yourself whereas I, and countless others, have been extremely liberal with their opinions in a very (mostly) generous and non-aggressive manner - explaining everything to the best of our collective understanding. You constantly allude to this image of extreme intelligence, but only hypocrisize yourself by refusing to explain your thought train unless asked very very directly. It's a bit tiresome to be honest - all you do is slow these debates down for no good reason apart from sitting on a high horse. Hence why I think you are a troll - as do many others.
-
Even if I have my numbers wrong - 20 degrees in the order of centimetres (which is even more ridiculous), what you and I perceive by touch as a straight line, would appear completely different from a light perspective.
If you are "not" suggesting the changes I understand to be what you are insinuating - what on earth ARE you insinuating then?
I don't know how to properly explain what I am insinuating because I do not know which part of what I said gave you the impression that you have. If you let me know how you came to the conclusion that I am advocating a bend of 45 degrees over the range of a few nanometres, I can better point out your error.
-
Even if I have my numbers wrong - 20 degrees in the order of centimetres (which is even more ridiculous), what you and I perceive by touch as a straight line, would appear completely different from a light perspective.
If you are "not" suggesting the changes I understand to be what you are insinuating - what on earth ARE you insinuating then?
I don't know how to properly explain what I am insinuating because I do not know which part of what I said gave you the impression that you have. If you let me know how you came to the conclusion that I am advocating a bend of 45 degrees over the range of a few nanometres, I can better point out your error.
As far as I understand it, you are suggesting a bend of light in fibre optics of the order in this image:
(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4686/stupidlight.jpg)
For starters, let me point out, it is ME, that has gone out of my way to draw something that you refuse to, just to try and grasp you ridiculous conceptions. Secondly, I apologise for the quality of drawing, it was a quick representation, and you should understand the idea behind it if this is really what you believe.
If this is not what you mean, then you seriously need to take the time to sit down and draw how you think fibre optics work with bending light in your mind in Microsoft Paint. This is exactly what I have done above, and I'm getting sick of your strange avoidance of drawing what you are insinuating.
If this REALLY isn't what you mean - then the way bending light would progress through a fibre optic would mean that the critical incidence angle of the optic would be achieved and all data would be lost. End of story.
-
(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4686/stupidlight.jpg)
Yes, that is what I am describing; however, I am not suggesting it occurs on that scale. If the angle of incidence were much, much greater - very close to 90 degrees - then the light could behave in that manner with only a very slight curvature.
-
(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4686/stupidlight.jpg)
Yes, that is what I am describing; however, I am not suggesting it occurs on that scale. If the angle of incidence were much, much greater - very close to 90 degrees - then the light could behave in that manner with only a very slight curvature.
So what scale are you suggesting it occurs on? Light manages to avoiding reflection for 3 miles in a fibre optic and then reflect in the way suggested? 20 miles? 1000 miles?
If it is minute, then said light would approach the critical angle, even with many reflections. There is no middle ground in this. Even if it was a massive arc in the order of a mile, a fibre optic would not work. They aren't constructed to work with those incidence angles and never will be. You can't explain their function on coincidence mate. Just give it up you youngun.
-
So what scale are you suggesting it occurs on? Light manages to avoiding reflection for 3 miles in a fibre optic and then reflect in the way suggested? 20 miles? 1000 miles?
It's possible.
If it is minute, then said light would approach the critical angle, even with many reflections. There is no middle ground in this. Even if it was a massive arc in the order of a mile, a fibre optic would not work. They aren't constructed to work with those incidence angles and never will be. You can't explain their function on coincidence mate. Just give it up you youngun.
You still haven't shown why the alternative case - where the light makes it the whole way across the fibre - would result in a decreasing angle of incidence. And please stop bringing my age into the debate, as it is entirely relevant to the subject at hand.
-
If the angle of incidence were much, much greater - very close to 90 degrees
I don't know how I missed this last night. Close to 90 degrees? Err...approaching the critical angle much?!
If you are talking about incidence angles of around 80 degrees, light would be lost. Well known and appreciated as that angle is quite beyond the critical angle of the majority of normal fibre optics.
As for the alternative case, I have described my hypothesis enough times now - read my posts properly and perhaps a book on optics. As I have said before, reluctant to make a diagram for you seeing as you can't even be bothered to make one yourself - thus I think you are a troll the majority of the time.
-
If the angle of incidence were much, much greater - very close to 90 degrees
I don't know how I missed this last night. Close to 90 degrees? Err...approaching the critical angle much?!
If you are talking about incidence angles of around 80 degrees, light would be lost. Well known and appreciated as that angle is quite beyond the critical angle of the majority of normal fibre optics.
Light is not lost if the angle of incidence is greater than the critical angle, only if it is less than the critical angle.
As for the alternative case, I have described my hypothesis enough times now - read my posts properly and perhaps a book on optics. As I have said before, reluctant to make a diagram for you seeing as you can't even be bothered to make one yourself - thus I think you are a troll the majority of the time.
You have identified that you think the angle of incidence would change over time, but you have not - as you claim - described why you think this. I'm not the one making the claim that the angle of incidence would change over time, so I don't deem it necessary to defend my case that fibre optics are compatible with curved light until you make a compelling argument against it.
-
i think you two are talking about two different angles. angle of incidence = angle between light ray and the direction perpendicular to the fibre. i guess that's what robo means
-
i think you two are talking about two different angles. angle of incidence = angle between light ray and the direction perpendicular to the fibre. i guess that's what robo means
That is what I mean, given that I was using the term "angle of incidence".
-
yep, and that's the convention in physics afaik
-
yep, and that's the convention in physics afaik
That's what I've always known an angle of incidence to be.
-
"Bendy light" is known as refraction, and it's caused by the air. Specifically, the different temperatures of air, and different concentrations. Very simple. Remember back in kindergarden, when they put the straw in the glass and it looked broken? Same principle. Do you understand? I hope you know what I mean...
-
"Bendy light" is known as refraction, and it's caused by the air. Specifically, the different temperatures of air, and different concentrations. Very simple. Remember back in kindergarden, when they put the straw in the glass and it looked broken? Same principle. Do you understand? I hope you know what I mean...
Electromagnetic Acceleration, or "bendy light", is different than refraction.
-
"Bendy light" is known as refraction, and it's caused by the air. Specifically, the different temperatures of air, and different concentrations. Very simple. Remember back in kindergarden, when they put the straw in the glass and it looked broken? Same principle. Do you understand? I hope you know what I mean...
Don't patronise me. I understand perfectly what refraction is, and that is not what we are talking about.
-
Despite of fact that RE (i read that as Real earth) is proved (17 "ham radio"'s pages), i'll bring back to life the mirrors experiment - why won't you use laser for measuring the distance ? the error for 50 meters will be relatively small, you just need to be sure that you are measuring distance between right parts of mirror. Furthermore - there will be exactly same error in measuring the distance between tops and bottoms of the mirrors, so they should cancel themsleves out.
If light were to travel in a curve, then it would be impossible to form a straight line in the experiment. It would keep increasing in height the further the light went. The rate at which it increases would increase with distance as well, if it were to create the illusion of a curved earth surface. You could angle the mirrors to make one segment between the mirrors straight, but you couldn't compensate for a growing height increase.
Even if there is 'bendy light' (that name makes me smile :) ), there is possibility of setting mirrors to reflect the ray within one height:
(http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2060/beztytuuejl.jpg)
There's also one issue with bendy light - i think that image of distant objects would be distorted due to different bending of rays running at other angles. I would try to do some calculations about that, if there are any equations describing the hypotetical bendy light's path... Are they?
PS. Sorry for my english ;)
-
Despite of fact that RE (i read that as Real earth) is proved (17 "ham radio"'s pages), i'll bring back to life the mirrors experiment - why won't you use laser for measuring the distance ? the error for 50 meters will be relatively small, you just need to be sure that you are measuring distance between right parts of mirror. Furthermore - there will be exactly same error in measuring the distance between tops and bottoms of the mirrors, so they should cancel themsleves out.
The error will add, not cancel out, but this is a very good idea to get two mirrors to be perfectly parallel.
Even if there is 'bendy light' (that name makes me smile :) )
"Bendy light" is not its proper name. The name of the hypothesis which involves a natural curvature of all light rays is "Electromagnetic Acceleration" theory, or EA theory for short. The term "bendy light" was coined by sceptical REers and has unfortunately achieved popular usage much more successfully than the proper term.
There's also one issue with bendy light - i think that image of distant objects would be distorted due to different bending of rays running at other angles. I would try to do some calculations about that, if there are any equations describing the hypotetical bendy light's path... Are they?
There will be soon. I've run into a spot of trouble with a nasty differential equation, but once I figure it out there shouldn't be too much in the way of a publication regarding EA theory.
PS. Sorry for my english ;)
Your English is fine, don't worry about it. :)
-
You have identified that you think the angle of incidence would change over time, but you have not - as you claim - described why you think this. I'm not the one making the claim that the angle of incidence would change over time, so I don't deem it necessary to defend my case that fibre optics are compatible with curved light until you make a compelling argument against it.
Am I going to get a response to this?