The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: ratooo on November 03, 2010, 04:01:57 AM
-
Now, this is to all "specialists" on the forum. "Bendy" light, a subject up for debate. I want to know how this type of light bends. To make it possible for the horizon effect, where a boat vanishes beyond the horizon, it must wave, as if light kept bending in one direction you could see your own back as light bent that way. I want to know your view on this subject and if you could my mind (but that is extremely unlikely).
-
The way that the Electromagnetic Accelerator operates would not allow you to see your own back. It "bends" light parallel to the UA and in the same direction as the UA.
-
light does "bend" due to gravitational pull.
-
light does "bend" due to gravitational pull.
1) not really.
2) not significantly.
3) in the opposite direction.
-
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
-
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
So you still can't explain it. Figures.
-
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
Charisma?
-
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
Charisma?
Poor life choices?
-
light does "bend" due to gravitational pull.
1) not really.
2) not significantly.
3) in the opposite direction.
It either does or it doesn't. An accurate answer is:
"Correct."
-
Light bends because of the magical nonsense that is UA.
-
Light bends because of the magical nonsense that is EA.
Fixed.
-
Light bends because of the magical nonsense that is EA.
Fixed.
Sorry markjo, I have to side with sillyrob on this one. He was correcting the "gravity bends light" which is, in the UA models, the UA, not Earth's gravity. (In the Cambridge model, it's still gravity.) (But as you surely know, no one here is going to measure that "downward" bending as it's too insignificant.)
-
Light bends because of the magical nonsense that is EA.
Fixed.
Sorry markjo, I have to side with sillyrob on this one. He was correcting the "gravity bends light" which is, in the UA models, the UA, not Earth's gravity. (In the Cambridge model, it's still gravity.) (But as you surely know, no one here is going to measure that "downward" bending as it's too insignificant.)
Eh, I'm with markjo. I saw sillyrob's post as just someone that isn't familiar with FET, and just used the terms incorrectly.
-
The way that the Electromagnetic Accelerator operates would not allow you to see your own back. It "bends" light parallel to the UA and in the same direction as the UA.
Well, that totally makes sense.
-
The way that the Electromagnetic Accelerator operates would not allow you to see your own back. It "bends" light parallel to the UA and in the same direction as the UA.
Well, that totally makes sense.
Welcome to TFES.
And a hint is that light doesn't bend. It's untested and undocument, used only to explain phenomena that FE'ers can't explain rationally.
-
light does "bend" due to gravitational pull.
The light does not bend, spacetime bends. This has been proven during eclipses when the bending of spacetime can be measured and exactly matches the predictions by general relativity.
-
Welcome to TFES.
And a hint is that light doesn't bend. It's untested and undocument, used only to explain phenomena that FE'ers can't explain rationally.
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
-
Why to avoid winning an argument?
Oh, 'cause you can't, sorry.
-
Welcome to TFES.
And a hint is that light doesn't bend. It's untested and undocument, used only to explain phenomena that FE'ers can't explain rationally.
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
Why should I explain how attractive gravitation works? Gravity is predictable and well-documented. Bendy light is not.
-
Welcome to TFES.
And a hint is that light doesn't bend. It's untested and undocument, used only to explain phenomena that FE'ers can't explain rationally.
I will explain it as soon as you explain how the Earth attracts me.
Why should I explain how attractive gravitation works? Gravity is predictable and well-documented. Bendy light is not.
So, I guess sunrises and sunsets are not well documented, huh?
-
So, I guess sunrises and sunsets are not well documented, huh?
???
What I meant was that gravity's effects and properties are known and predictable, Bendy Light isn't. Bendy light can't explain sunrises/sunsets on a flat Earth farther than "uhh... the light bends, and it looks like the Sun sets/rises."
-
So, I guess sunrises and sunsets are not well documented, huh?
???
What I meant was that gravity's effects and properties are known and predictable, Bendy Light isn't. Bendy light can't explain sunrises/sunsets on a flat Earth farther than "uhh... the light bends, and it looks like the Sun sets/rises."
And, what effects can gravity explain in the Round Earth Model except thoss that are necessary for it to be true, such as:
We fall on the Earth, the Moon, the Earth with the other planets rotate around the Earth and Sun, respectively because the second body is much more massive and they attract each other by the gravitational force?
-
And, what effects can gravity explain in the Round Earth Model except thoss that are necessary for it to be true...
???
-
And, what effects can gravity explain in the Round Earth Model except thoss that are necessary for it to be true...
???
Do you have any questions? 'It' refers to the Round Earth model and 'to be' is better worded as 'appear'.
-
And, what effects can gravity explain in the Round Earth Model except thoss that are necessary for it to be true...
???
Do you have any questions? 'It' refers to the Round Earth model and 'to be' is better worded as 'appear'.
How about some help on 'thoss'?
-
They were listed if you had bothered reading the original post that was quoted. Oh, I see. You thought you made a win by point out a typo. Nice one champ. Here, have this apple.
-
They were listed if you had bothered reading the original post that was quoted. Oh, I see. You thought you made a win by pointing out a typo. Nice one champ. Here, have this apple.
I just know that you love pointing others' mistakes like that, so I thought you'd like being corrected as much as you like kissing boys.
-
so I thought you'd like being corrected as much as you like kissing boys.
This is true.
-
so I thought you'd like being corrected as much as you like kissing boys.
This is true.
lrn2quote
-
So, I guess sunrises and sunsets are not well documented, huh?
???
What I meant was that gravity's effects and properties are known and predictable, Bendy Light isn't. Bendy light can't explain sunrises/sunsets on a flat Earth farther than "uhh... the light bends, and it looks like the Sun sets/rises."
And, what effects can gravity explain in the Round Earth Model except thoss that are necessary for it to be true, such as:
We fall on the Earth, the Moon, the Earth with the other planets rotate around the Earth and Sun, respectively because the second body is much more massive and they attract each other by the gravitational force?
Cavendish Experiment?
-
So, I guess sunrises and sunsets are not well documented, huh?
???
What I meant was that gravity's effects and properties are known and predictable, Bendy Light isn't. Bendy light can't explain sunrises/sunsets on a flat Earth farther than "uhh... the light bends, and it looks like the Sun sets/rises."
And, what effects can gravity explain in the Round Earth Model except thoss that are necessary for it to be true, such as:
We fall on the Earth, the Moon, the Earth with the other planets rotate around the Earth and Sun, respectively because the second body is much more massive and they attract each other by the gravitational force?
Cavendish Experiment?
Perform a search on these forums. There have been numerous lengthy discussion in which the validity of this experiment had been brought in question.
-
"Brought into question" is not the same thing as "disproved".
-
"Brought into question" is not the same thing as "disproved".
Please explain in detail the Cavendish Experiment without linking to external sites.
-
"Brought into question" is not the same thing as "disproved".
Please explain in detail the Cavendish Experiment without linking to external sites.
Pretty easy actually. The Cavendish experiment was an attempt to measure the density of the earth using a torsion balance and two sets of matched weight lead spheres, one set 1.6 lbs in weight, and the other weighing about 12 lbs. The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the smaller balls and the large ones.
-
"Brought into question" is not the same thing as "disproved".
Please explain in detail the Cavendish Experiment without linking to external sites.
Well I was lucky enough to watch a demo during work some years back.
The Sysco rep demonstrated that the Cavendish specialty cut fries (in their special breathable bag to avoid condensation buildup) outperform McCain fries in a volume stack test using the same weight of fries as measured in a volumetric tube. The Cavendish fries kept a higher volume build up.
The next week we went to Lamb-Weston because they tasted much better.
Later I worked at a place where we had to punch out our own fries but we used Canvendish waffle cuts for some plates.
So I have seen the Cavendish Experiment done by a Sysco Rep.
Berny
Prefers sweet potato fries overall - Cavendish waffle cuts