The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: EmperorZhark on April 16, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
-
Imagine yourself in a ship at sea, with only water to be seen around.
You'll notice that the horizon around you forms a circle and that the horizon is at the same distance wherever you look.
You'll notice also that whatever the altitude of the sun, the horizon is exactly at the same distance.
How is that coherent with bendy light?
-
How can you judge the comparative distance of the horizon with just your eyes?
-
How can you judge the comparative distance of the horizon with just your eyes?
How can you judge the flatness of the earth with just your eyes?
-
I hold straight edges up to the horizon or take pictures with trusted cameras and study them.
-
Do you do this from elevations where the curvature is predicted to be visible on the horizon?
-
I do it from sea level just like the OP's thought experiment. Why do RE'ers have to always chance the conditions of things until it's such a warped issue that they can scream, "RE Victory!!!" over they logic spaghetti they just boiled? It's plain dishonest.
-
I'm not changing the conditions with my questions. You're the one putting doubt on using your eyes to make measurements, which is ironic considering that that's all FET has.
I'd say this would go a lot better if we had something else in the water for reference. Ships, buoys, etc. Something hidden behind the horizon will become visible once it expands out with increased elevation.
But I suppose the OP is trying to make a different point? Do any FEers still even hold to bendy light?
-
Imagine yourself in a ship at sea, with only water to be seen around.
You'll notice that the horizon around you forms a circle and that the horizon is at the same distance wherever you look.
You'll notice also that whatever the altitude of the sun, the horizon is exactly at the same distance.
How is that coherent with bendy light?
You are making the mistake that bendy light is still on the table as a FE theory. It was disproved a couple of years ago by invariance of angular distance between stars.
-
You are making the mistake that bendy light is still on the table as a FE theory. It was disproved a couple of years ago by invariance of angular distance between stars.
Actually, you are making the mistake of thinking that bendy light was ever developed enough for there to be something to disprove in the first place.
-
You are making the mistake that bendy light is still on the table as a FE theory. It was disproved a couple of years ago by invariance of angular distance between stars.
Actually, you are making the mistake of thinking that bendy light was ever developed enough for there to be something to disprove in the first place.
Lol yeah, it really never went much further than "light bends".
-
Electromagnetic Acceleration.
-
Good point, Irushwithscvs, that changes everything!
-
Good point, Irushwithscvs, that changes everything!
It really does, when you think about it. If we change "Observation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Entanglement on Supraquantum Structures by Induction Through Nonlinear Transuranic Crystal of Extremely Long Wavelength (ELW) Pulse from Mode-Locked Source Array" to "recording some waves do neat stuff in a gem" it just isn't the same, is it?
-
So please, do us all a favor and explain the rich intricacies of electromagnetic acceleration and why it isn't a failed theory.
-
1. If you are at sea and if you approach shores, you can know exactly at what distance they are when you see them (if you have a GPS and a good map), so it's easily proven that the horizon is exactly at the same distance wherever you look.
2. Water is always flat (let's discard waves for a while), what other explaination would be?
-
Electromagnetic Acceleration.
We are defeated in debate! :o
-
Electromagnetic Acceleration.
We are defeated in debate! :o
Stating the obvious is something you seem to do a lot lately.
-
Still no FET explaination?
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted. Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted. Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
I don't see the explaination!
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
Piling on the wisdom of markjo... Nope.
Bendy light does not address the OP. The mathematical foundation is useless since the "Bishop Constant" is unknown and it applies to only one very special condition. Would you care to justify your outlandish claim now?
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted. Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted. Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Correct.
Furthermore, the amount of bending of light is proportional to the angle it travels towards the viewer at in order to work, with vertical being no bending and horizontal being maximum bending. This predicts that the angular distance between stars should change significantly as they approach or recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. EAT disproved by virtue of not producing the one thing it is capable of predicting.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
I love this. He's both arguing that light bends and that light does not bend, and if I point out that this is blatant (and indeed not very good) trolling, I'll get a slap.
Let's hope some newbies come in and read this thread before deciding whether it's worth signing up.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?
Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?
Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.
I think you should change your name to "ItrollsohardIgorightthroughsupportingFETandcomeouthteothersidemakingitlookalaughingstock".
-
TK, please watch the low-content posts.
-
TK, please watch the low-content posts.
I do watch them. I especially watched the one by Rushy, suggesting that satellites wave their arms out of their windows to indicate making a turn, go sailing right past unremarked. I watched that very carefully indeed.
-
TK, please watch the low-content posts.
I do watch them. I especially watched the one by Rushy, suggesting that satellites wave their arms out of their windows to indicate making a turn, go sailing right past unremarked. I watched that very carefully indeed.
We don't have any rules against making the occasional joke, but we do have one against personal attacks. Your post added nothing to the discussion and was just there to stir up trouble.
Also, this is not the appropriate place to dispute moderation. Consider yourself warned.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?
Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.
First of all, what makes you believe that there were any strong magnets in or around the Bedford Levels. Secondly, what makes you believe that magnetic fields, no matter how strong, affect the bending of light?
-
Still no FET explaination?
The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.
The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted. Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.
It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
bending into a sphere perhaps?
bending like say a s
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?
Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.
First of all, what makes you believe that there were any strong magnets in or around the Bedford Levels. Secondly, what makes you believe that magnetic fields, no matter how strong, affect the bending of light?
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
-
Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat. In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line. This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).
Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces
In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles. The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer. If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight. Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon. This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.
Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.
What strong magnetic fields are you referring to?
Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.
First of all, what makes you believe that there were any strong magnets in or around the Bedford Levels. Secondly, what makes you believe that magnetic fields, no matter how strong, affect the bending of light?
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Sorry, but that's another great example of special pleading. (And you sure didn't waste any time giving up on your previous position, did you?)
-
Sorry, but that's another great example of special pleading. (And you sure didn't waste any time giving up on your previous position, did you?)
Well, it was wrong. No sense in beating a dead horse, hmm? Why are you so quick to call it special pleading? If all science simply discarded an entire theory based on a few pot holes, then we wouldn't get anywhere. It makes perfect sense to change the theory into a workable solution. Kind of like how science made up dark energy to explain what is holding galaxies together rigidly.
Also, what are you sorry for?
-
Sorry, but that's another great example of special pleading. (And you sure didn't waste any time giving up on your previous position, did you?)
Well, it was wrong. No sense in beating a dead horse, hmm? Why are you so quick to call it special pleading? If all science simply discarded an entire theory based on a few pot holes, then we wouldn't get anywhere. It makes perfect sense to change the theory into a workable solution. Kind of like how science made up dark energy to explain what is holding galaxies together rigidly.
Also, what are you sorry for?
There's quite a difference between special pleading and refining a theory. Special pleading requires a lack of criticism of the new condition, which is obviously missing in your post. Science is vigorously critiquing the dark energy hypothesis.
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.
In other words, no evidence. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.
So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.
So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.
Looks to me like time passed. Was this post supposed to address some kind of dilemma?
-
scabs believe it or not some people do like to come here to read interesting data supporting fet. your making it up as you go along though. whats the big deal? you dont believe in fet anyway so why bang on about it?
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.
So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.
Looks to me like time passed. Was this post supposed to address some kind of dilemma?
No, just informing other readers of how silly your special pleading is and has been over time.
So again: How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head?
-
No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.
Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?
It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.
So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.
Looks to me like time passed. Was this post supposed to address some kind of dilemma?
No, just informing other readers of how silly your special pleading is and has been over time.
So again: How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head?
You already did the calculation for that, 140 microseconds. Unless, of course, you meant something else.
-
Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.
-
Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.
And please make it work with the question asked in this topic!
-
Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.
I keep clearing up bendy light and keep being ignored.
Bendy light predicts all light coming in at an angle other than vertical should be displaced upwards in a curve, in order to maintain the appearance of a horizon for things to rise and set behind. Unfortunately for its inventor (Steven "Parsifal" McDoughnut), it also predicts that the angular distances between stars should change as they approach and recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. Hence bendy light is cleared up by filing it in the trash.
-
Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.
I keep clearing up bendy light and keep being ignored.
Bendy light predicts all light coming in at an angle other than vertical should be displaced upwards in a curve, in order to maintain the appearance of a horizon for things to rise and set behind. Unfortunately for its inventor (Steven "Parsifal" McDoughnut), it also predicts that the angular distances between stars should change as they approach and recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. Hence bendy light is cleared up by filing it in the trash.
Actually, I have to disagree. Bendy light matches RET in its current formulation when the Bishop Constant is zero. FEers' current research does not rule out that value.
Of course that value would certainly be great evidence for RET and disproof of FET. So until FEers actually do their homework there's no reason to discuss bendy light further.
-
Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.
I keep clearing up bendy light and keep being ignored.
Bendy light predicts all light coming in at an angle other than vertical should be displaced upwards in a curve, in order to maintain the appearance of a horizon for things to rise and set behind. Unfortunately for its inventor (Steven "Parsifal" McDoughnut), it also predicts that the angular distances between stars should change as they approach and recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. Hence bendy light is cleared up by filing it in the trash.
Actually, I have to disagree. Bendy light matches RET in its current formulation when the Bishop Constant is zero. FEers' current research does not rule out that value.
Of course that value would certainly be great evidence for RET and disproof of FET. So until FEers actually do their homework there's no reason to discuss bendy light further.
Yes, but if the Bishop Constant is zero then you can rebalance the equation to eliminate the description of bending entirely. Though also, ISWYDT. ;D