The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: PCM49 on April 12, 2011, 01:27:23 PM
-
can someone explain how this theory that light 'bends upwards' came about, and why light supposedly does this?
and also why it bends in the same direction that humans happen to call 'up'. theres millions of other directions it could bend. why 'up'?
-
I don't know the origins, but it is an alternate idea than the one that Rowbotham put forward regarding the optical illusion of 'squishing/sinking' over the horizon of objects and the setting sun/moon/stars.
Basically, instead of this being a trick of perspective for otherwise straight light, the idea came about that the light curves at a gradual upward skewed (angled) parabolic arc, and it is this phenomena that explains this off in the distance 'sinking effect' at the horizon. It also explains why, after you see something 'set' behind the horizon, if you quickly climb vertically up, you can restore the image to view.
Now, given (assuming) a flat earth, there must therefore be some acceleration force that bends electromagnetic rays in an upwardly direction, this is the basis of Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory (EAT)
-
can someone explain how this theory that light 'bends upwards' came about, and why light supposedly does this?
and also why it bends in the same direction that humans happen to call 'up'. theres millions of other directions it could bend. why 'up'?
You are a person that is not easily fooled. We are planning a peaceful protest is Washington DC. Would you join us there? john flanderson and myself are the only ones brave enough so far to go there. I can tell that you are a man of truth, please join us.
-
Bent light has been disproved.
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
God told me Skeleton was right.
There. Referenced.
Satisfied?
Berny
The mouthpiece
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
God told me Skeleton was right.
There. Referenced.
Satisfied?
Berny
The mouthpiece
Did you write it in a journal? That should make it 100% reliable.
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
Your claim that a reference to the disproof is never provided is nothing more than a bare faced lie. I personally have linked to it at least twice in these discussions. You stating something does not mean you arent lying. Anyone here is quite capable of searching the forum, but go on, keep sticking your head in the sand. Im not linking for you again you lazy troll.
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
I for one am curious. Can you explain electromagnetic acceleration theory in more detail? And have you considered the refraction of light? Refraction would work opposite to the way EAT should curve light, so EAT is a more dominant force?
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
Your claim that a reference to the disproof is never provided is nothing more than a bare faced lie. I personally have linked to it at least twice in these discussions. You stating something does not mean you arent lying. Anyone here is quite capable of searching the forum, but go on, keep sticking your head in the sand. Im not linking for you again you lazy troll.
link it one more time.
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
Your claim that a reference to the disproof is never provided is nothing more than a bare faced lie. I personally have linked to it at least twice in these discussions. You stating something does not mean you arent lying. Anyone here is quite capable of searching the forum, but go on, keep sticking your head in the sand. Im not linking for you again you lazy troll.
link it one more time.
Never mind the disproof, that only takes but a couple of posts to prove once we RE'ers push through all the troll fodder posts. Give me a link to the proof.
-
Give me a link to the proof.
Pray tell, how does one prove a theory?
-
Give me a link to the proof.
Pray tell, how does one prove a theory?
The scientific method is usually a pretty good place to start.
-
Give me a link to the proof.
Pray tell, how does one prove a theory?
The scientific method is usually a pretty good place to start.
Could you please give an example of where the scientific method had proven a theory?
-
Give me a link to the proof.
Pray tell, how does one prove a theory?
The scientific method is usually a pretty good place to start.
Could you please give an example of where the scientific method had proven a theory?
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
How is any of that evidence that light bends? Sounds like evidence of a round earth to me.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
Yes we know that all of the usual arguments for a RE become arguments for bendy light. That isn't new. The question is what makes bendy light more than a crackpot idea to explain those phenomena? What process or mechanism makes bendy light work, why aren't radio waves effected by it, and why does celestial light not get effected?
-
light being "bendy"
does not exist until proven,
and will not be part of the new FAQ I have written with input from
discearththoery elite.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
How is any of that evidence that light bends? Sounds like evidence of a round earth to me.
How is any of that evidence that the Earth is round? Sounds like evidence that light bends to me.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
How is any of that evidence that light bends? Sounds like evidence of a round earth to me.
How is any of that evidence that the Earth is round? Sounds like evidence that light bends to me.
The observation that light from stars is not bent sounds like evidece that light doesnt bend to me.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
How is any of that evidence that light bends? Sounds like evidence of a round earth to me.
How is any of that evidence that the Earth is round? Sounds like evidence that light bends to me.
The observation that light from stars is not bent sounds like evidece that light doesnt bend to me.
And yet, the apparent altitude of Polaris seems to decrease as one approaches the Equator from the North.
-
By definition you cannot "prove" a theory, or it would be a law. Theories are, however, normally well documented and supported by evidence. I believe he was asking for this evidence.
Bending of the horizon, sinking ships, clouds lit from below, the discrepancy between downscaled optical distances and real distances.
How is any of that evidence that light bends? Sounds like evidence of a round earth to me.
How is any of that evidence that the Earth is round? Sounds like evidence that light bends to me.
The observation that light from stars is not bent sounds like evidece that light doesnt bend to me.
And yet, the apparent altitude of Polaris seems to decrease as one approaches the Equator from the North.
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
Berny
The stars answer it all
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
can you display, without referencing Star Trek, any actual scientific FACTS to support your lunacy? I bet you can't, or you'll suggest I read some other mad rant by a slightly questionable 'scientist'..
-
Bent light has been disproved.
Every time this claim is made, I ask for a reference to the disproof. People never do seem to be able to provide it. Can you?
can you display, without referencing Star Trek, any actual scientific FACTS to support your lunacy? I bet you can't, or you'll suggest I read some other mad rant by a slightly questionable 'scientist'..
Their only evidence is that it must be true assuming the Earth is flat. So in other words, it's a direct consequence of starting off with the flat earth theory. The only problem however is that it also has its problems which makes it contradict real life observations. This point is just a technical difficulty however and nothing so important that you should think much about it, just shrug it off like all FEers do.
-
so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?
-
so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?
Based on your posts so far, I'd say learning a lot more about physics would be a step in the right direction.
-
so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?
Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?
-
so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?
Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?
Because it has never been shown to...?
-
so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?
Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?
Because it has never been shown to...?
That apparently hasn't been a problem for any other theory on this site...?
-
Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?
Because it has never been shown to...?
Ahem:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0
http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/sunbend.html
-
Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?
Because it has never been shown to...?
Ahem:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0
http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/sunbend.html
This is because the Earth is curved, and the atmosphere curves with it
Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".
-
Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".
Who said it was?
Light bends in different mediums, why should the atmoplane be different?
Because it has never been shown to...?
-
Oh! So we agree that light refracts, that's fine..I'm sorry. I could've told everybody that a long time ago, though. What was the point of this thread? ???
-
Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".
Who said it was?
Horatio.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.
This is true, but not relevant.
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.
This is true, but not relevant.
It is quite relevant.
Anyhow, how is the star's rotations relative to your latitude an optical phenomenon (in the sense that I think you mean to say illusion)
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole. In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator. Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.
Berny
Most FE'ers are NorthCentrics anyhow
-
Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".
Who said it was?
Horatio.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0
I never said that.
-
Yeah, cool story. Refraction has never been, is not, and will never be the same thing as "bendy light".
Who said it was?
Horatio.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47816.0
I never said that.
You said: "Phil Plait supports bendy light", then you linked to an article describing atmospheric refraction. What other possible conclusion was I supposed to draw?
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole. In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator. Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.
No, it does not mean that at all. How did you conclude this?
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole. In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator. Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.
No, it does not mean that at all. How did you conclude this?
What other conclusion was he supposed to come to?
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
Although you may call it a phenomenon - it means that there is a definable South Pole and there would be no Rim since travelling Southwards past the equator one is travelling towards the Center Pole. In fact the only place that could be percieved as Rimwards would be towards the equator. Therefore how can you define that the North Pole is the actual center of the FE world when the South Pole has all the exact same "Optical" properties.
No, it does not mean that at all. How did you conclude this?
What other conclusion was he supposed to come to?
Please don't answer questions directed to other with another question. I am curious what is the line of reasoning that led him to write that particular paragraph.
-
Please don't answer questions directed to other with another question. I am curious what is the line of reasoning that led him to write that particular paragraph.
And I'm trying to figure out what line of reasoning you used when you said "This is again an optical phenomenon." Vague responses like that are not very helpful in moving the discussion forward.
-
Please don't answer questions directed to other with another question. I am curious what is the line of reasoning that led him to write that particular paragraph.
And I'm trying to figure out what line of reasoning you used when you said "This is again an optical phenomenon." Vague responses like that are not very helpful in moving the discussion forward.
So, why then, did you quote the whole discussion with berny and not ask the question by quoting only my post?
-
You must be aware by this point that parsec has never been interested in being helpful, or moving a discussion forward.
-
so in order to make sense of their theory I simply need to forget about physics, in the same way that in order to fly one simply throws oneself at the ground, and misses?
Based on your posts so far, I'd say learning a lot more about physics would be a step in the right direction.
Please don't make low-content posts in the serious debate forums
-
Please don't make low-content posts in the serious debate forums
See you in a few days.
-
And as one passes the equator the stars revolve around a fixed point in the south which is in direct contradiction to FE theory.
This is again an optical phenomenon.
In fact, everything we observe is an optical phenomenon! Astounding.
This is true, but not relevant.
Yes, EXACTLY like your comment here:
And yet, the apparent altitude of Polaris seems to decrease as one approaches the Equator from the North.
Completely irrelevant to the disproof of bent light, which does not require observations to be made from different points on the earths surface. Observations from one latitude are quite sufficient to gather data that will let the theory of bent light die a fiery screaming death, dwindling until all that remains is a crappy ember with "Parsec was here" written on it, and a faint smell of troll piss.
-
Completely irrelevant to the disproof of bent light,
who said i wanted to disprove bendy light?!
which does not require observations to be made from different points on the earths surface. Observations from one latitude are quite sufficient to gather data that will let the theory of bent light die a fiery screaming death,
a) since when being on the same latitude implies you are at the same point?
b) do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
dwindling until all that remains is a crappy ember with "Parsec was here" written on it, and a faint smell of troll piss.
please refrain from your literary efforts as they induce a vomit reflex in the rest of us.