The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Pythagoras on January 15, 2013, 09:15:54 AM
-
just a quick question relay. could i have a link to some research on bendy light in regards to the amount of bend to distance traveled ratio. also if its just sun light that bends or all light produced natural and man made?
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
-
Let's see the research backing that up. In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.
-
yeah i will admit im not that deep on math was looking more for a graph perhaps saying something like after 8000 miles the light has bent 30 degrees for example. just a reference guide not something i need to spend ages on working out all the time.
-
Let's see the research backing that up. In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.
Give them a break. They think the Earth is flat.
-
Bendy light is most often brought up for things like the sunset, however in the description of the equation it says
"this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical."
given that in FET sunsets happen when the horizontal distance the light travels is greater than the vertical distance that might be a problem with it.
-
interesting how iv had no links to any research or experimental evidence yet ??? just a single equation. hmmmmm...........
p.s and apparently a wrong wrong at that.
-
In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.
Please justify this statement.
-
For this equation to equal y- a length, the units for the "Bishop constant" are absolutely bizarre. It isn't an empirical equation, as the Wiki states that it hasn't been measured experimentally.
Any explanations on this?
-
For this equation to equal y- a length, the units for the "Bishop constant" are absolutely bizarre. It isn't an empirical equation, as the Wiki states that it hasn't been measured experimentally.
Any explanations on this?
The units for the Bishop constant are consistent with the definition of the Bishop constant given on that same wiki page.
-
For this equation to equal y- a length, the units for the "Bishop constant" are absolutely bizarre. It isn't an empirical equation, as the Wiki states that it hasn't been measured experimentally.
Any explanations on this?
The units for the Bishop constant are consistent with the definition of the Bishop constant given on that same wiki page.
So they are- my mistake for being too quick on that one.
There still seems to be a lot of pseudo-science in the description though, and I'd love to see some background.
-
How can you have an empirical equation for an unmeasured quantity? That's sort of what empirical means.
-
I'm always amazed that RErs always pick out the most simple of our theories and ignore the really difficult stuff.
You can see in the video below, some guy explaining bendy light in a Flat Earth introduction.
flat earth documentary (http://#)
^That vid should probably be in the FAQ.
Oh course the really meaty discussion comes when you realise that in order to have bendy light, you must also have bendy darkness.
-
touche. The theorists might consider the idea that by inserting a mass term into the electromagnetic lagrangian one could create an effective massive photon that might be able to bend in an appropriate field. Although I'm sure that's all been considered.
-
If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.
-
If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.
Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.
-
If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.
Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.
He's got you there. That's a pretty revolutionary video, it's not every day you realize you live in a black hole.
-
If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.
Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.
He's got you there. That's a pretty revolutionary video, it's not every day you realize you live in a black hole.
Thork didn't realise that, because he is a layman.
-
If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.
Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.
He's got you there. That's a pretty revolutionary video, it's not every day you realize you live in a black hole.
Thork didn't realise that, because he is a layman.
No, I am an expert on earth's shape.
-
In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.
Please justify this statement.
Your label says bendy light specialist. If that's so, then it should be obvious to you that the equation as printed there will give the incorrect rate of curvature, regardless of the value of the Bishop constant. I assume you understand what each part of the equation relates to in real tems?
-
How can you have an empirical equation for an unmeasured quantity? That's sort of what empirical means.
What? Empirical means derived from experimentation- So an empirical equation is essentially an educated "best guess" to fit with a set of results. Or measurements.
I'm always amazed that RErs always pick out the most simple of our theories and ignore the really difficult stuff.
I'm struggling to find any "difficult stuff"- eg Tom Bishop's proof behind this bendy light equation?
-
How can you have an empirical equation for an unmeasured quantity? That's sort of what empirical means.
What? Empirical means derived from experimentation- So an empirical equation is essentially an educated "best guess" to fit with a set of results. Or measurements.
Yes - thats what I said. The equation doesn't really mean anything. I'm not sure whether the odd powers are there to give 'beta' units of acceleration or to scale the huge value of c^2 down to an everyday number or what. Either way it's a slightly odd equation.
-
I thought light moved in straight lines? :-[ We proved it in class ages ago! :-\
-
Yes - thats what I said. The equation doesn't really mean anything. I'm not sure whether the odd powers are there to give 'beta' units of acceleration or to scale the huge value of c^2 down to an everyday number or what. Either way it's a slightly odd equation.
The units for the Bishop constant are correct as far as the claim that it's an acceleration (Length/Time^2) but that's about it...
I'd love to see the background for this, but unfortunately I just don't think there is any & I can only assume it's made up. It also appears that if x is unknown, there is more than one possible solution.
-
To show that light travels in straight lines
Procedure
1. Place three identical cards with a small hole in each about 10 cm apart.
2. Arrange them so that the holes are in a straight line.
3. Look through the holes to see the light.
4. Move one of the cards slightly to one side.
Result
The light can only be seem when the cards are in a straight line.
Conclusion
Light travels in straight lines
(http://images.tutorvista.com/content/feed/tvcs/displaced-obstacle-rectilinear-propagation-of-light-experiment.jpeg)
Have you guys not done this?
-
To show that light travels in straight lines
Procedure
1. Place three identical cards with a small hole in each about 10 cm apart.
2. Arrange them so that the holes are in a straight line.
3. Look through the holes to see the light.
4. Move one of the cards slightly to one side.
Result
The light can only be seem when the cards are in a straight line.
Conclusion
Light travels in straight lines
(http://images.tutorvista.com/content/feed/tvcs/displaced-obstacle-rectilinear-propagation-of-light-experiment.jpeg)
Have you guys not done this?
They normally protest the Society does not have the funds for experiments.
-
Too short a distance to be conclusive.
-
Too short a distance to be conclusive.
Hardly, that's just dodging the results. If it was bendy, then the distance required to show this would have to be so big, it'd be like how people treat the mass of electrons. Not really worth our time.
-
Over that distance the human eye wouldn't detect such a bend. The bendy light in question requires an experiment over a few miles to get conclusive results. Setting up such an experiment for normal folk like me and you would be impossible.
-
Over that distance the human eye wouldn't detect such a bend. The bendy light in question requires an experiment over a few miles to get conclusive results. Setting up such an experiment for normal folk like me and you would be impossible.
I disagree with you, but I suppose neither of us should say anything until we can test it, huh?
-
Your label says bendy light specialist. If that's so, then it should be obvious to you that the equation as printed there will give the incorrect rate of curvature, regardless of the value of the Bishop constant. I assume you understand what each part of the equation relates to in real tems?
I asked you to justify your claim. Are you able to do this or not?
To show that light travels in straight lines
[snip]
Have you guys not done this?
What is the uncertainty in the measured curvature of light in this experiment?
-
Over that distance the human eye wouldn't detect such a bend. The bendy light in question requires an experiment over a few miles to get conclusive results. Setting up such an experiment for normal folk like me and you would be impossible.
I disagree with you, but I suppose neither of us should say anything until we can test it, huh?
what are you disagreeing with exactly?
-
Over that distance the human eye wouldn't detect such a bend. The bendy light in question requires an experiment over a few miles to get conclusive results. Setting up such an experiment for normal folk like me and you would be impossible.
Doesn't work with a laser then? Seen one of those shining from Big Ben actually- didn't appear to bend.
Edit: Should probably say the laser light was visible for a long distance
-
Doesn't work with a laser then? Seen one of those shining from Big Ben actually- didn't appear to bend.
Edit: Should probably say the laser light was visible for a long distance
Bear in mind that the light returning to your eyes is also bending. If you are close to the laser, it will curve back along approximately the same path as the laser itself, and the effect will be the appearance of a straight line.
-
i still don't understand the premise of the equation. its not based on theory and its not based on experiment. what is it based on? it just just seems to an equation for a curve which can be achieved. also there are three vector quantities there so the expression is at best incomplete
-
i still don't understand the premise of the equation. its not based on theory and its not based on experiment. what is it based on? it just just seems to an equation for a curve which can be achieved. also there are three vector quantities there so the expression is at best incomplete
It is based on theory. I started out with a basic premise -- that the magnitude of the force on a light ray is constant for a horizontal ray, and for any given light ray can be determined as the vertical component of that constant perpendicular to the ray, directed upwards -- and arrived at the equation on the wiki as an approximation by cancelling certain terms in a much longer equation that become near-equal for large values of x.
Unfortunately, I have since lost the intermediate working, but I'm sure that given time I could reproduce it given the simplicity of the premise.
-
light has no mass a classical force does not acceleeate light, and i thought x and y were orthogonal.
-
Doesn't work with a laser then? Seen one of those shining from Big Ben actually- didn't appear to bend.
Edit: Should probably say the laser light was visible for a long distance
Bear in mind that the light returning to your eyes is also bending. If you are close to the laser, it will curve back along approximately the same path as the laser itself, and the effect will be the appearance of a straight line.
That's a a silly explanation to be honest. Bendy light that appears straight in this situation, but curved when another situation calls for it? How would you determine if light is going to "appear" straight or curved?
Also, wouldn't this bendy light equation completely invalidate the much loved "Bedford Level Experiment"? I assume the light appears straight in the results that show a flat earth, but bendy when it shows a convex or concave surface?
I started out with a basic premise -- that the magnitude of the force on a light ray is constant for a horizontal ray
Force caused by what?
directed upwards
The equation allows both negative & positive values of x to be true for one value of y- if 16 = x^4, x could be -2 or 2. Hence it does not show the direction of the "bend".
-
light has no mass a classical force does not acceleeate light
You are correct, of course. I erred in my previous post; I meant to say acceleration, not force.
and i thought x and y were orthogonal.
They are. If the work requires further explanation, please ask me to clarify; it has been some time since I worked on it, so I have undoubtedly forgotten to include parts in my explanation here.
That's a a silly explanation to be honest. Bendy light that appears straight in this situation, but curved when another situation calls for it?
I don't see what is silly about it. It simply follows from the existing bendy light hypothesis.
How would you determine if light is going to "appear" straight or curved?
You would need to consider the curvature not only of the ray being observed, but of the path light takes from that ray to the observer.
Also, wouldn't this bendy light equation completely invalidate the much loved "Bedford Level Experiment"? I assume the light appears straight in the results that show a flat earth, but bendy when it shows a convex or concave surface?
The Bedford Level Experiment and bendy light are part of alternative Flat Earth models. Most bendy light supporters are in agreement with REers on the validity (or lack thereof) of Rowbotham's work.
Force caused by what?
Dark Energy, a hypothetical universal phenomenon that creates the UA as well as bendy light.
The equation allows both negative & positive values of x to be true for one value of y- if 16 = x^4, x could be -2 or 2. Hence it does not show the direction of the "bend".
Incorrect. For both possible values of x, the resulting bend will be directed upward, as given by d2y/dx2.
-
light has no mass a classical force does not acceleeate light
You are correct, of course. I erred in my previous post; I meant to say acceleration, not force.
An acceleration must be accompanied by a force, does it not?
Dark Energy, a hypothetical universal phenomenon that creates the UA as well as bendy light.
Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?
Incorrect. For both possible values of x, the resulting bend will be directed upward, as given by d2y/dx2.
I am unsure how you have concluded this & as you say, there is much needed further explanation.
-
Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?
The double standards are truly jaw-dropping.
-
Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?
The double standards are truly jaw-dropping.
It's a real shame that so far on this forum, Parfisal is the first "FE'er" to actually engage in a somewhat serious scientific argument & attempt to back up his views, which makes for an interesting debate.
Not just make meaningless, smart-ass remarks.
-
Your label says bendy light specialist. If that's so, then it should be obvious to you that the equation as printed there will give the incorrect rate of curvature, regardless of the value of the Bishop constant. I assume you understand what each part of the equation relates to in real tems?
I asked you to justify your claim. Are you able to do this or not?
I just did. Since it now appears you wrote the equation, if you can't understand why it's a problem, then you don't understand the maths you're working with. The right side of the equation produces a figure that is too large, under all circumstances, to be correct for the rate of curvature needed to produce a curve on the light ray comparable to the curve of the earth's surface in RET. Changing the 3rd root to a 4th corrects this by making all figures smaller. Sorry Parsifal, but as the person who wrote the equation, you should be able to see why it's a problem and where the error lies. I don't need to justify it any more than if you'd written 2+2=5 and I said no, the answer's 4.
-
An acceleration must be accompanied by a force, does it not?
As bowler pointed out, light is massless. Therefore, acceleration of a light ray would be caused by something outside our experience, as a conventional force would not do the trick.
Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?
The concept of Dark Energy in FET is distinct from that in RET. They are not the same thing.
In FET, Dark Energy is simply a hypothetical and as yet unexplained phenomenon used to explain Universal Acceleration and bendy light. That is, we are not "applying" anything. We begin with the supposition that light moves in a curved path, and we then use mathematics to see what the world would be like if that were true. A thought experiment of sorts, much like the way relativity started out.
"Dark Energy" is simply the label we give to the unknown cause of this curvature.
Incorrect. For both possible values of x, the resulting bend will be directed upward, as given by d2y/dx2.
I am unsure how you have concluded this & as you say, there is much needed further explanation.
The curvature of a graph is given by its concavity, which is given by the second derivative of the equation, as I stated. It is fairly simple calculus; I'm not sure what requires further explanation.
You may be confusing gradient with concavity, which seems to be a common error. Light can be directed down but still bending up.
I just did. Since it now appears you wrote the equation, if you can't understand why it's a problem, then you don't understand the maths you're working with. The right side of the equation produces a figure that is too large, under all circumstances, to be correct for the rate of curvature needed to produce a curve on the light ray comparable to the curve of the earth's surface in RET. Changing the 3rd root to a 4th corrects this by making all figures smaller. Sorry Parsifal, but as the person who wrote the equation, you should be able to see why it's a problem and where the error lies. I don't need to justify it any more than if you'd written 2+2=5 and I said no, the answer's 4.
Replacing the third root with a fourth root in that equation produces a straight line path for light, thus making it entirely irrelevant to bendy light. I had initially assumed you knew this and were trying to make a point of it, but I now see that I gave your intellect too much credit.
Feel free to return to this discussion once you have gained a rudimentary understanding of calculus.
-
The curvature of a graph is given by its concavity, which is given by the second derivative of the equation, as I stated. It is fairly simple calculus; I'm not sure what requires further explanation.
You may be confusing gradient with concavity, which seems to be a common error. Light can be directed down but still bending up.
But which direction is "up"? The only information available is that it is perpendicular to the x-direction.
I must admit your points have been interesting to read Parsifal, and if you ever get round to looking at the working behind this idea it would be great to see it.
Unfortunately, to my mind, I do think there are some very flawed concepts behind this idea- the fact that it involves an acceleration with no force- which throws Newtonian principles out the window, and also as you say, the cause of the curvature is unknown & for me, unobserved.
-
But which direction is "up"? The only information available is that it is perpendicular to the x-direction.
"Up" may be defined as the direction of fastest increasing gravitational potential. More fundamentally, it is the direction in which Dark Energy acts. It is the direction which we call "up" in common parlance.
In terms of that equation, "up" is the direction of fastest increasing y.
I must admit your points have been interesting to read Parsifal, and if you ever get round to looking at the working behind this idea it would be great to see it.
As I recall, it involved four or five two-sided pages of working, and in my usual style it would have been impossible for anybody else to follow, as I do my working wherever there happens to be space on the page and track what things mean in my head. Even if I could find it again, I would likely not understand it now.
I would need to work out the steps again and then document them in a human-friendly form, and I am a lot busier these days than I was when I did this three and a half years ago.
Unfortunately, to my mind, I do think there are some very flawed concepts behind this idea- the fact that it involves an acceleration with no force- which throws Newtonian principles out the window, and also as you say, the cause of the curvature is unknown & for me, unobserved.
It is a very incomplete hypothesis, yes. I have never claimed it to be solid or thoroughly explored, only interesting.
-
Right in classical physics as I'm sure everyone knows
F = ma = m(dv/dt) or more importantly in term of momentum (p)
F = dp/dt.
notice the above was in terms of velocity, not speed.
Okay so we know the photon has no rest mass and therefore from special relativity is constrained to travel at the speed of light. This is why light travels in a straight line, it's not an experimental fact it follows directly from special relativity, you cannot apply a classical force to light and thus you cannot accelerate it. In fact it turns out all light can do is scatter off of charged particles.
The equation in the wiki may or may not hold for a massive particle. I don't really follow it's meaning beyond the fact you get a curve it you plot it as y = f(x). At least some of its terms should probably be explicit functions of time and some vectors appear to have become scalar without motivation. However without some re-working of electrodynamics it's hard to see how light can bend in the mechanical framework of physics - this was why I suggested an additional mass term in the electrodynamic lagrangian although this brings it's own problems.
-
Okay so we know the photon has no rest mass and therefore from special relativity is constrained to travel at the speed of light. This is why light travels in a straight line, it's not an experimental fact it follows directly from special relativity, you cannot apply a classical force to light and thus you cannot accelerate it. In fact it turns out all light can do is scatter off of charged particles.
Yes, hence the unknownness of Dark Energy. The cause of the acceleration is not well-established.
To clarify, the speed of the light ray is not altered, only its direction.
The equation in the wiki may or may not hold for a massive particle. I don't really follow it's meaning beyond the fact you get a curve it you plot it as y = f(x).
That is its only meaning. It is simply an approximation of the shape of the curve bent light takes, nothing more.
At least some of its terms should probably be explicit functions of time
Time was specifically excluded from the equation. The intent was to give an idea of the extent of the curvature of light, so for instance you could determine approximately how big a circle will be illuminated for a given light source altitude (such as the Sun).
some vectors appear to have become scalar without motivation.
There are no vectors in that equation. The Bishop constant represents the magnitude of a vector, not the vector itself. The speed of light and the x and y co-ordinates are scalars.
However without some re-working of electrodynamics it's hard to see how light can bend in the mechanical framework of physics - this was why I suggested an additional mass term in the electrodynamic lagrangian although this brings it's own problems.
Indeed, the nature of the accelerator has not yet been addressed, so any supposition at this point is pure speculation (but welcome speculation).
-
So it is just a curvy line? I can picture a curve. I'm still not clear on what the magnitude of a vector multiplied by an unspecified positions especially when the answer is another unspecified position in an orthogonal axis.
To accelerate the photon in the way you seem to be implying you have two modifications you must make to physics;
- re-write general relativity (well throw it away as it hangs on the fact)
- re-write quantum mechanics - i'd start here.
-
Replacing the third root with a fourth root in that equation produces a straight line path for light
Entirely untrue. Even the wiki text accompanying this mathematical garbage says that a straight line would be represented by a value of zero, therefore any number higher than zero is not a straight line. Please tell me what number has a fourth root of zero?
-
Entirely untrue. Even the wiki text accompanying this mathematical garbage says that a straight line would be represented by a value of zero, therefore any number higher than zero is not a straight line. Please tell me what number has a fourth root of zero?
Irrelevant. We are not discussing the equation in the wiki, we are discussing your "corrected" equation. Your "correction" produces an equation which is not the same as the equation in the wiki. Any comments which relate to the equation in the wiki do not necessary relate to your (as yet unjustified) modification.
Furthermore, incorrect. I have no idea which wiki you are reading, but the page linked from the first reply in this thread makes no such statement. This may be demonstrated by viewing the page, pressing Ctrl+F in your web browser, and searching for the string "straight". You will see that the page makes no mention whatsoever of a straight line.
Finally, I am disappointed that someone who acts as smug and arrogant as yourself has no concept of what the "correction" you are proposing -- nay, demanding -- actually means. I ask, for the sake of the society and the people who stand to be misled into thinking that you know what you are talking about, that you refrain from making any more "corrections" to others' theories until you fully understand the concepts involved.
-
Entirely untrue. Even the wiki text accompanying this mathematical garbage says that a straight line would be represented by a value of zero, therefore any number higher than zero is not a straight line. Please tell me what number has a fourth root of zero?
Irrelevant. We are not discussing the equation in the wiki, we are discussing your "corrected" equation. Your "correction" produces an equation which is not the same as the equation in the wiki. Any comments which relate to the equation in the wiki do not necessary relate to your (as yet unjustified) modification.
Furthermore, incorrect. I have no idea which wiki you are reading, but the page linked from the first reply in this thread makes no such statement. This may be demonstrated by viewing the page, pressing Ctrl+F in your web browser, and searching for the string "straight". You will see that the page makes no mention whatsoever of a straight line.
Finally, I am disappointed that someone who acts as smug and arrogant as yourself has no concept of what the "correction" you are proposing -- nay, demanding -- actually means. I ask, for the sake of the society and the people who stand to be misled into thinking that you know what you are talking about, that you refrain from making any more "corrections" to others' theories until you fully understand the concepts involved.
No, not irrelevant at all. Just because I rephrased the text does not mean that it doesn't give the information that a value of zero for Y represents no curvature. Trying to make out that the exact words I used aren't in the article is poor argument indeed. You know that perfectly well, you realise you've concocted a badly made equation that you thought nobody would notice because people can't be bothered to test it. I understand the concepts involved - the only concepts needed are those that produce a curve of the right shape in the equation and a component to represent a force of a particular magnitude (the Bishop constant) to represent the cause of curvature.
Face it, you made up a garbage fictional bit of maths you thought nobody would sit down with a calculator and a piece of graph paper and test, and you've been caught with your pants down.
-
No, not irrelevant at all. Just because I rephrased the text does not mean that it doesn't give the information that a value of zero for Y represents no curvature. Trying to make out that the exact words I used aren't in the article is poor argument indeed.
Quote me the part of the wiki that supports your claim, then. I don't care about the specific language, just quote me what led you to this conclusion.
I understand the concepts involved
Evidently not. But do feel free to humour me if you're so confident; explain your reasoning instead of making claims and then asserting that they are obvious.
- the only concepts needed are those that produce a curve of the right shape in the equation and a component to represent a force of a particular magnitude (the Bishop constant) to represent the cause of curvature.
I can't even work out what you're trying to say here. The best I can come up with is "the only concepts needed are the concepts needed".
The only reason I'm yet to refute your argument is that you're yet to post one. Stop posting tautologies and backing up your claims by asserting that they are true, and get on with it.
Face it, you made up a garbage fictional bit of maths you thought nobody would sit down with a calculator and a piece of graph paper and test, and you've been caught with your pants down.
Let's not make this personal. I'm sure our friendly neighbourhood overlord-to-be, Thork, would agree that this paragraph was entirely unnecessary. The energy you wasted typing it could have been better spent making your first valid point of the thread.
-
I can't be bothered arguing with someone who knows full well the equation they have posted is made up nonsense. If you really thought I was wrong, you'd have posted a breakdown in this thread of how all the components of the equation are correct, and why they're in there, because I could not have possibly countered that. Your skating around defending the equation and merely concentrating on attacking my correction of a blatant mistake says rather a lot, I think.
And I think the readers of these fooras are perfectly capable of making their own minds up about the accuracy of your equation.
"Bendy light specialist". ::)
-
I thought we'd all agreed that the equation was simply the equation for a curvy line, with the fine feature of concavity, in case anyone wants to minimize it.
-
I thought we'd all agreed that the equation was simply the equation for a curvy line, with the fine feature of concavity, in case anyone wants to minimize it.
Yep, that's what I tried to tell Parsifal, but he pretended not to be able to understand it.
-
so infact we have no scientifc or experimental evidence for bendy light. no mathmatics to back it up? wow and this is a corner stone of FE. wow this sounds more and more like religion and blind faith than ever before.
-
I can't be bothered arguing with someone who knows full well the equation they have posted is made up nonsense.
Feel free to leave the discussion at any time.
If you really thought I was wrong, you'd have posted a breakdown in this thread of how all the components of the equation are correct, and why they're in there, because I could not have possibly countered that.
How could I possibly do that? It seems you have read the relevant wiki page more carefully than I have, since you have claimed it to say things that I cannot find anywhere on the page, yet you do not comprehend that the equation is only an approximation and therefore not (completely) correct.
Furthermore, it is derived from a basic premise, as I have already explained. Equations are not pieced together symbol by symbol; I can not explain how a "component" of the equation is correct any more than I can explain how I make phone calls using a microphone.
Your skating around defending the equation and merely concentrating on attacking my correction of a blatant mistake says rather a lot, I think.
I do not need to defend anything. I have never laid claim to that equation being anything more than an approximation, and an approximation of a hypothetical phenomenon at that. I certainly have not presumed to state its self-evidence and ridicule anyone who questions its validity.
By contrast, you have come into this thread with a "correction", showing obvious ignorance of the concepts you claim to be correcting. When asked to justify your position, instead of rationally explaining how you came to the conclusion that the equation was incorrect, you resorted to ridiculing me.
I have also never attacked your "correction", only your position. Your correction may be perfectly valid, but if you are unable to justify why it is valid, or how you established that it is valid, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.
And I think the readers of these fooras are perfectly capable of making their own minds up about the accuracy of your equation.
"Bendy light specialist". ::)
Irrelevant.
I thought we'd all agreed that the equation was simply the equation for a curvy line, with the fine feature of concavity, in case anyone wants to minimize it.
Yep, that's what I tried to tell Parsifal, but he pretended not to be able to understand it.
If you understood the subject matter at hand, it would be quite plain that this is what I have been trying to tell you. However, I see no evidence of pretence on your part.
As you claim to understand what the equation represents, please go ahead and pick any non-zero value for the Bishop constant. Now plot a curve based on your "corrected" equation and see what concavity that has. Then pick another value for the Bishop constant, and see what concavity you get.
Come back and tell me when you find a value that produces a non-zero concavity. I will be very curious to know what it is.
Also, it seems you have overlooked the need to respond to any of my requests for substantiation in this thread. Since you appear to be new to debating, I will give you a hint: It does not make your argument appear stronger to avoid defending it.
I will quote each such request again here so you can respond to them now. I do not intend to respond to any more of your posts until you at least make a sincere effort to do so. In the interest of brevity, I will only post the first instance of requests that I have raised multiple times without an answer.
In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.
Please justify this statement.
No, not irrelevant at all. Just because I rephrased the text does not mean that it doesn't give the information that a value of zero for Y represents no curvature. Trying to make out that the exact words I used aren't in the article is poor argument indeed.
Quote me the part of the wiki that supports your claim, then. I don't care about the specific language, just quote me what led you to this conclusion.
-
Light IS "bendy", that's fact.
What I cannot find an answer here is to why, according to flat Earth theory, it bends upwards rather that downwards?
(As I read here, "upward" is the direction in which potential energy grows fastest. The "downward" is the opposite direction. And I'm not asking for refraction part of bending, only the UA part is of interest.)
-
bendy in the sense that fe says to alow the sun to work in thier model? or are you talking about refraction? just want to confirm becuse im not sure which you ment. also fact? facts requier evidence.
-
In the real world the light is bent by gravitation (along with refraction).
In this flat Earth world the light is bent by UA, but like with all other FE "laws of FE nature" - for no apparent reason it is bent in the wrong way. No flat-earther seem to bother fixing or, at very least, explaining it.
-
yes agreed. gravitation does indeed bend light. sory was just a bit confused from what angle you were comming from. :P
-
:)
I'm coming from exactly orthogonal angle.
-
Where is light bent by gravitation?
-
black holes are an extreme. but i think any mass bends light to some degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens)
but with this we have observable evidence backed up by scientfic reaserch and math. something bendy light in FE has non of.
-
black holes are an extreme. but i think any mass bends light to some degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens)
but with this we have observable evidence backed up by scientfic reaserch and math. something bendy light in FE has non of.
That's not light bending, that's space bending. Since light is what we can see, it appears that the light is bending.
The difference is this: if light was bending within space, a ruler in that space would appear straight to us, while the light would appear bent. And to an observer next to that beam of light, it would still appear bent. If space is bending, both a straight ruler and a beam of light would appear bent by the same amount. And to an observer next to that beam of light, it would appear straight.
-
fair enough but the light does appear to bend from an outsiders location. im suprised FE hasnt jumped on this form of bending to try and explain bendy light.
-
fair enough but the light does appear to bend from an outsiders location. im suprised FE hasnt jumped on this form of bending to try and explain bendy light.
OK I concede it does appear to bend. FE'ers haven't jumped on it because it relies on the existence of gravity and the light also bends the wrong way.
-
yes agreed. gravitation does indeed bend light. sory was just a bit confused from what angle you were comming from.
This is a common misconception that I've seen sometimes here. Space is bent by a massive object, and since light always follow geodesics (the shortest path), light will bend when passing nearby. There's no bendy light in general relativity, there's curved space.
-
I'm always amazed that RErs always pick out the most simple of our theories and ignore the really difficult stuff.
You can see in the video below, some guy explaining bendy light in a Flat Earth introduction.
flat earth documentary (http://#)
^That vid should probably be in the FAQ.
Oh course the really meaty discussion comes when you realise that in order to have bendy light, you must also have bendy darkness.
The plum bob bit is ridiculous. You'd have to have a building span 10 miles before you noticed any significant difference in the walls "plum"-ness.
Flat-earthers have difficulty thinking on a larger scale. Bottom line. "The earth is flat because it looks flat." Never considered that it looks flat because it's really big and you're really small?
-
Disproof of bendy light (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,51933.msg1277048.html#msg1277048)
-
Disproof of bendy light (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,51933.msg1277048.html#msg1277048)
The only thing that post proves is that The Knowledge does not understand EAT or the word "perpendicular", which is unsurprising given that The Knowledge does not understand very many things at all.
-
Disproof of bendy light (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,51933.msg1277048.html#msg1277048)
The only thing that post proves is that The Knowledge does not understand EAT or the word "perpendicular", which is unsurprising given that The Knowledge does not understand very many things at all.
But it appears to be a valid disproof, nonetheless. At least TK wasn't ranting in that one.
-
I've been following this thread and I have a question.
How does "bendy light" behave when the sun is directly overhead? Does it still bend?
-
That's actually a very good question. If light bends outwards in all directions the. Their should be a dark spot directly underneath. I would also like to know the answer
-
I've been following this thread and I have a question.
How does "bendy light" behave when the sun is directly overhead? Does it still bend?
Plug your numbers into Parsifal's equation, it will tell you the answer, apparently... ::)
-
But it appears to be a valid disproof, nonetheless. At least TK wasn't ranting in that one.
It is a valid disproof of The Knowledge's incorrect understanding of bendy light, if you want to look at it that way, yes. Incorrect things are often relatively easy to disprove.
How does "bendy light" behave when the sun is directly overhead? Does it still bend?
That's actually a very good question. If light bends outwards in all directions the. Their should be a dark spot directly underneath. I would also like to know the answer
Sorry, I haven't been in the upper fora much lately so I've only just seen this question. The amount of curvature on a ray of light changes with its orientation; it bends most when horizontal, and not at all when vertical.
When you are directly underneath the Sun, the light is going straight down towards you, so it does not bend at all. As you move further and further away from the Sun, the light is bending more and more to reach you. Finally, you reach a point where the light is curving to such an extent that it is horizontal when it reaches you, and so the Sun appears to be on the horizon -- this is what happens at sunrise and sunset.
When the Sun is even further away than that, there is no path that light can take from the Sun to you which does not go down through the Earth's surface and then curve back up again. Since light is blocked by the Earth's surface, you don't see the Sun at all. This is what happens at night.
-
When you are directly underneath the Sun, the light is going straight down towards you, so it does not bend at all. As you move further and further away from the Sun, the light is bending more and more to reach you. Finally, you reach a point where the light is curving to such an extent that it is horizontal when it reaches you, and so the Sun appears to be on the horizon -- this is what happens at sunrise and sunset.
When the Sun is even further away than that, there is no path that light can take from the Sun to you which does not go down through the Earth's surface and then curve back up again. Since light is blocked by the Earth's surface, you don't see the Sun at all. This is what happens at night.
Thats a pretty explanation but does not apply in the real world. A known fact of sunsets is that after you watch the sun set. if you get to higher position (or you could watch it laying down and then stand) you can see the light of the sun again. According to your explanation the oposite would happen. after the sun has set you could get to a lower position to look it again.
-
When you are directly underneath the Sun, the light is going straight down towards you, so it does not bend at all. As you move further and further away from the Sun, the light is bending more and more to reach you. Finally, you reach a point where the light is curving to such an extent that it is horizontal when it reaches you, and so the Sun appears to be on the horizon -- this is what happens at sunrise and sunset.
When the Sun is even further away than that, there is no path that light can take from the Sun to you which does not go down through the Earth's surface and then curve back up again. Since light is blocked by the Earth's surface, you don't see the Sun at all. This is what happens at night.
Thats a pretty explanation but does not apply in the real world. A known fact of sunsets is that after you watch the sun set. if you get to higher position (or you could watch it laying down and then stand) you can see the light of the sun again. According to your explanation the oposite would happen. after the sun has set you could get to a lower position to look it again.
I try to follow this thread. If I understand right light is supposed to bend upward. So why should you see the sun from a lower position when it is gone further away?
-
Thats a pretty explanation but does not apply in the real world. A known fact of sunsets is that after you watch the sun set. if you get to higher position (or you could watch it laying down and then stand) you can see the light of the sun again. According to your explanation the oposite would happen. after the sun has set you could get to a lower position to look it again.
Homesick Martian seems to be on the right track. I'd also like to know why you think that moving lower should cause the Sun to become visible.
-
Thats a pretty explanation but does not apply in the real world. A known fact of sunsets is that after you watch the sun set. if you get to higher position (or you could watch it laying down and then stand) you can see the light of the sun again. According to your explanation the oposite would happen. after the sun has set you could get to a lower position to look it again.
Homesick Martian seems to be on the right track. I'd also like to know why you think that moving lower should cause the Sun to become visible.
Because the farther the sun goes. the closer to the ground the rays travel? But the light tavels upwards? thats seems pretty wierd even for bendy light. But its ok. your game your rules.
-
Because the farther the sun goes. the closer to the ground the rays travel?
The Sun is always emitting the same light, bending in the same way, regardless of where you are. The light that goes above the surface of the Earth and bends back up doesn't simply stop existing because you move far away from it.
In my previous post, I was talking specifically about the ray of light that the observer sees (or would see if it was not being blocked by the Earth's surface), since other rays are irrelevant. This doesn't imply that the Sun is a laser targeted only at the observer. Move the observer, and you need to consider other parts of the Sun's output.
But the light tavels upwards? thats seems pretty wierd even for bendy light. But its ok. your game your rules.
Some light travels up, some light travels down. There is no law of the Universe which states that all light needs to travel down. However, the direction in which light travels is not the key point here; according to bendy light, the light will curve upwards.
-
After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.
-
Bendy light actually explains a lot. There just isn't enough evidence to back the claim yet.
Accepting UA and bendy light makes FET a good theory. Obviously you do need to ignore a lot of modern achievements though.
-
After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
-
Drop the math and make some pictures.
-
Drop the math and make some pictures.
No.
-
Drop the math and make some pictures.
No.
You dont need to make some pictures. what do you think of this one? (just in case you didnt see that topic)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57916.msg1467390.html#new (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57916.msg1467390.html#new)
-
Drop the math and make some pictures.
No.
Add both. Bendy light would be more accepted if people can visualise it.
-
After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
Yes they do?
-
After finding just the first derivative of that function it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
Yes they do?
Now it's specific.
-
8)
I thought this guy was supposed to know basic calculus?
-
Bendy light actually explains a lot.
Except that it's incompatible with Bedford Levels type experiments.
-
Bendy light actually explains a lot.
Except that it's incompatible with Bedford Levels type experiments.
Yes, it's also incompatible with Round Earth, Cubic Earth, and Pizza Earth. The fact that one model is not compatible with another model is not very surprising, nor relevant to this discussion.
tl;dr: stop being such a markjo
-
Bendy light actually explains a lot.
Except that it's incompatible with Bedford Levels type experiments.
Yes, it's also incompatible with Round Earth, Cubic Earth, and Pizza Earth. The fact that one model is not compatible with another model is not very surprising, nor relevant to this discussion.
tl;dr: stop being such a markjo
Welcome back PizzaPlanet. I didn't miss you at all. It's nice to see that your reading comprehension skills are just as sharp as ever. Your comment might be relevant if this thread were about round earth, cubic earth or pizza earth. But, since this thread isn't about any of those shaped earths. This thread is about how bendy light is supposed to work in a flat earth model. Now feel free to Th*rk off.
-
Welcome back PizzaPlanet. I didn't miss you at all.
I was happy to see you, only because you're no longer a mod, so I don't have to worry about your derailments being any less severe an offence than my pointing out of them.
It's nice to see that your reading comprehension skills are just as sharp as ever.
That they are!
Your comment might be relevant if this thread were about round earth, cubic earth or pizza earth.
Actually, no. That would make it completely irrelevant and very pointless.
But, since this thread isn't about any of those shaped earths.
See, perhaps you would find it easier not to complain about people's reading comprehension if you finished your.
This thread is about how bendy light is supposed to work in a flat earth model.
Indeed! And, presumably in attempt to cause confusion, you've decided to completely ignore the fact that there are numerous competing Flat Earth models, and pointed out that one of them is incompatible with the other. I then expanded your argument to point out that it's also incompatible with other models of the Earth, which you rightfully found silly. It would seem as if you should be aware why your argument made as little sense as my extension of it, but apparently that didn't work. Hopefully this explanation has been helpful. If not, please feel free to request more help. Your usual method of just throwing insults around will work just dandelions.
-
Indeed! And, presumably in attempt to cause confusion, you've decided to completely ignore the fact that there are numerous competing Flat Earth models, and pointed out that one of them is incompatible with the other.
??? Since when are bendy light and the Bedford Levels experiment flat earth models?
-
as the distance taken over the bedford experiments and the distance of the sun is vastly different it isnt unreasonable to say that it is 2 different things. and if you take refraction at water level into account then it throws up another kettle of fish.
-
??? Since when are bendy light and the Bedford Levels experiment flat earth models?
One is an experiment to support a group of models, and the other is a theory to support another group of models. The two are disjoint sets.
But hey, we're making progress. At least you're not defending your argument and you're just trying to assault mine.
-
??? Since when are bendy light and the Bedford Levels experiment flat earth models?
One is an experiment to support a group of models, and the other is a theory to support another group of models. The two are disjoint sets.
Interesting, I thought that the earth was flat in all FE models. In that case, the BLE should work in all FE models. So, in which FE models does bendy light conflict with the BLE and in which ones does it not conflict?
-
Interesting, I thought that the earth was flat in all FE models.
Yes.
In that case, the BLE should work in all FE models.
No. That's like saying that just because the Earth is spherical in all RE models, then geocentrism (or heliocentrism, for that matter) must be applicable to all models.
Assuming EAT (i.e. optical equivalency to RET, for most purposes), the results of BLE should be expected to be consistent with mainstream science's views - which are directly contradictory to Rowbotham et al's findings.
-
Interesting, I thought that the earth was flat in all FE models.
Yes.
In that case, the BLE should work in all FE models.
No. That's like saying that just because the Earth is spherical in all RE models, then geocentrism (or heliocentrism, for that matter) must be applicable to all models.
So, in which FE models does the BLE apply and in which FE models does the BLE not apply?
Assuming EAT (i.e. optical equivalency to RET, for most purposes), the results of BLE should be expected to be consistent with mainstream science's views - which are directly contradictory to Rowbotham et al's findings.
If light bends (or is accelerated upwards), then by what standard is the earth judged to be flat?
-
So, in which FE models does the BLE apply and in which FE models does the BLE not apply?
Ones that do not and do incorporate EAT, respectively.
If light bends (or is accelerated upwards), then by what standard is the earth judged to be flat?
Physical shape.
-
So, let me get this straight: gravity (which a lot of FE'ers deny even exists), an attractive force between objects with mass, can apparently have a dramatic influence on light (which has little or no mass), but is incapable of holding us/buildings/cars/the atmosphere/etc (which all have substantial mass) onto the surface of the round earth? Right...
-
So, let me get this straight: gravity (which a lot of FE'ers deny even exists), an attractive force between objects with mass, can apparently have a dramatic influence on light (which has little or no mass)
No.
-
After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
Yes they do?
This post is even less coherent than your previous one. If you cannot even manage to communicate what operation you performed, which is a prerequisite for explaining your conclusion (something you have not even attempted), then I must request that you leave this thread instead of continuing to waste your time and mine.
-
After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
Yes they do?
This post is even less coherent than your previous one. If you cannot even manage to communicate what operation you performed, which is a prerequisite for explaining your conclusion (something you have not even attempted), then I must request that you leave this thread instead of continuing to waste your time and mine.
I found the first derivative of the equation. Why are you acting like there's more to it? And saying equations do have derivatives is not coherent these days anymore?
-
I found the first derivative of the equation. Why are you acting like there's more to it?
There is no such thing as "the first derivative of [an] equation". An equation is merely a statement that two expressions are equal. To perform an operation on an equation is to perform the equivalent operation on both expressions.
For example, I can start with this equation:
a = b
This merely states that the expression a is equal to the expression b. I can then perform a simple operation on both expressions:
2a = 2b
This is rudimentary algebra, which I'm sure you are familiar with. However, what seems to have eluded you is that it would not be correct to say that I have found "the multiplication of this equation". To sufficiently qualify the operation I have performed, I have multiplied both sides of my equation by 2.
Similarly, while taking a derivative of both sides of an equation is indeed a type of operation you could perform, it is not a complete description of such an operation.
And saying equations do have derivatives is not coherent these days anymore?
Actually, you asked me that equations have derivatives by ending your sentence with a question mark. Such a question does not make sense.
-
I found the first derivative of the equation. Why are you acting like there's more to it?
There is no such thing as "the first derivative of [an] equation". An equation is merely a statement that two expressions are equal. To perform an operation on an equation is to perform the equivalent operation on both expressions.
For example, I can start with this equation:
a = b
This merely states that the expression a is equal to the expression b. I can then perform a simple operation on both expressions:
2a = 2b
This is rudimentary algebra, which I'm sure you are familiar with. However, what seems to have eluded you is that it would not be correct to say that I have found "the multiplication of this equation". To sufficiently qualify the operation I have performed, I have multiplied both sides of my equation by 2.
Similarly, while taking a derivative of both sides of an equation is indeed a type of operation you could perform, it is not a complete description of such an operation.
And saying equations do have derivatives is not coherent these days anymore?
Actually, you asked me that equations have derivatives by ending your sentence with a question mark. Such a question does not make sense.
Well I'm not an english major, big whoop. But I do know calculus, and I've always just said "the derivative of the equation", and I think you know what I mean.
-
Well I'm not an english major, big whoop. But I do know calculus, and I've always just said "the derivative of the equation", and I think you know what I mean.
Regardless of whether or not I know what you mean, if you do not say what you mean then your argument (whenever you would care to make one) is not self-sufficient. Remember that I (or anyone else who may or may not know what you mean) am not the only person who might want to read this thread. Being specific in your communication helps to make yourself understood.
If you wish to continue this discussion, then I suggest you a) clearly state the operation you have performed; and b) justify your conclusion that it "looks like garbage".
-
For those of you who slept through calculus at high school (Parsifal, I'm looking at you!), here's an example of derivatives:
Area of a circle: a = pi x r2
Taking the first derivative gives us the circumference: c = 2 x pi x r
Where pi is ~3.14, and r is the radius of the circle.
-
Man Parsifal is a master of evasion, *tip of the hat*
-
Parsifal, assuming you know the message dog is trying to convey, tell me the correct way to say it (not that his way is incorrect). Should it be "I have calculated the first derivative of the expression 3/4 cuberoot(Bx^4/c^2) with respect to x regarding B as the Bishop constant and C as the rate of change of position of a photon travelling in a vacuum in a straight line over a given interval of time (T)." If you can't tell what he's saying, you're stupid. If you are trolling, you're stupid. Either way, you're stupid.
Why do you waste everybody's time with shit like this and then complain about markjo in S&C for one comment.
-
Parsifal, assuming you know the message dog is trying to convey, tell me the correct way to say it (not that his way is incorrect). Should it be "I have calculated the first derivative of the expression 3/4 cuberoot(Bx^4/c^2) with respect to x regarding B as the Bishop constant and C as the rate of change of position of a photon travelling in a vacuum in a straight line over a given interval of time (T)." If you can't tell what he's saying, you're stupid. If you are trolling, you're stupid. Either way, you're stupid.
Why do you waste everybody's time with shit like this and then complain about markjo in S&C for one comment.
-
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
Parsifal:
you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative)
Software like Photoshop is full of mathematical stuff like derivatives, Fourier transforms etc. If you say derivatives are scientifically incorrect, then go deny that Photoshop exists. Go tell them guys at Adobe that they are selling fake software which doesn't work. Step into a gaming center and tell all those 3D-gamers that they are being misled by mathematics.
-
you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative)
Shit, you did differential calculus when you were 3-5 years old? Now I feel bad about myself.
Software like Photoshop is full of mathematical stuff like derivatives, Fourier transforms etc. If you say derivatives are scientifically incorrect, then go deny that Photoshop exists. [...]
lol
-
you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative)
Shit, you did differential calculus when you were 3-5 years old? Now I feel bad about myself.
No, you wimp. He only knows equations from pre-kindergarten. That's why he can't understand basic differential calculus, which comes in elementary. Sometime after that comes advanced differential calculus at university level. This guy only knows a + c = c and that there needs to be a balance on both sides of the = operator. That's the pre-kindergarten stuff I'm talking about.
-
I could be wrong, but I think Parsifal was trying to point out that derivatives are only found for functions, not equations. Not all equations are functions.
-
I could be wrong, but I think Parsifal was trying to point out that derivatives are only found for functions, not equations. Not all equations are functions.
No he was being nitpicking with syntax because getting a derivative is an operation. However its a pretty weak objection since "taking the derivative of an equation" is pretty commonly used. Even if what you were saying is true, the equation in question is a function.
-
I could be wrong, but I think Parsifal was trying to point out that derivatives are only found for functions, not equations. Not all equations are functions.
In the equation being discussed, I think everybody is assuming y=f(x).
-
differential calculus, which comes in elementary
Shit, you did differential calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_calculus) in elementary school? Now I feel bad about myself.
a + c = c and that there needs to be a balance on both sides of the = operator. That's the pre-kindergarten stuff I'm talking about.
Shit, you did algebra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra#Algebra_as_a_branch_of_mathematics) in Pre-K (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-kindergarten)?
What schools did you go to? I'd like to ask them about their revolutionary teaching methods and try to help popularise them here in the UK.
-
For those of you who slept through calculus at high school (Parsifal, I'm looking at you!), here's an example of derivatives:
What makes you think I don't know what a derivative is?
Parsifal, assuming you know the message dog is trying to convey, tell me the correct way to say it (not that his way is incorrect). Should it be "I have calculated the first derivative of the expression 3/4 cuberoot(Bx^4/c^2) with respect to x regarding B as the Bishop constant and C as the rate of change of position of a photon travelling in a vacuum in a straight line over a given interval of time (T)." If you can't tell what he's saying, you're stupid. If you are trolling, you're stupid. Either way, you're stupid.
There is no need for him or her to redefine symbols that are defined where the equation is given. He or she should simply state what operation was performed. I do not know how I can make this any clearer.
Why do you waste everybody's time with shit like this and then complain about markjo in S&C for one comment.
Irrelevant.
you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative)
What makes you think I don't know what a derivative is?
I could be wrong, but I think Parsifal was trying to point out that derivatives are only found for functions, not equations. Not all equations are functions.
No equation is a function. An equation, as I have already pointed out, is merely a statement that two expressions are equal. One of those expressions may declare a function, however, which would make the equation act as the definition of that function.
And yes, a continuous function does have a derivative function.
getting a derivative is an operation.
Correct, in the same way that multiplication is an operation. Neither "getting a derivative" nor "multiplying" completely describes the operation performed, however.
However its a pretty weak objection since "taking the derivative of an equation" is pretty commonly used.
Argumentum ad populum.
Even if what you were saying is true, the equation in question is a function.
Incorrect. No equation is a function.
In the equation being discussed, I think everybody is assuming y=f(x).
No function f has yet been defined in this discussion. Assuming its existence is illogical.
If you wish to take the derivative of a function f, then please define a function f before doing so.
Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks Parsifal is an imbecile haha
Reported for low-content posting. If you are going to post here, please respond to my points; take meaningless insults to Angry Ranting where I will gladly respond in kind.
-
you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative)
Shit, you did differential calculus when you were 3-5 years old? Now I feel bad about myself.
No, you wimp. He only knows equations from pre-kindergarten. That's why he can't understand basic differential calculus, which comes in elementary. Sometime after that comes advanced differential calculus at university level. This guy only knows a + c = c and that there needs to be a balance on both sides of the = operator. That's the pre-kindergarten stuff I'm talking about.
pre-K equations are limited to 1+1=?
Equation balance doesn't begin until middle school. (11-13 years old).
Calculus is an optional, high placement high school class. But only if your school offers it.
Stop arguing that calculus is simple and that Steve can't do it because last time I checked, not all equations had a meaningful differential anyway.
-
Now I'm perplexed. Y cannot be conceived as the function of x? How the hell then is the formula applied to the real world? As long as we are not told how the formula is supposed to work we can only guess. And why do you only tell people that their guesses are wrong without really explaining your point? I can't speak for other people, but I am sick of your one liners. What is this? Is it science or is it only a game?
-
Now I'm perplexed. Y cannot be conceived as the function of x?
You certainly appear to be confused, since I have said no such thing.
How the hell then is the formula applied to the real world? As long as we are not told how the formula is supposed to work we can only guess.
The equation is explained in detail on the wiki page linked in the first reply in this thread.
And why do you only tell people that their guesses are wrong without really explaining your point? I can't speak for other people, but I am sick of your one liners. What is this? Is it science or is it only a game?
I have accurately and succinctly explained every point I have made in this thread. If others cannot do the same, I cannot do anything but ask for clarification. For instance, I asked Dog to provide the specific operation he or she performed on the relevant equation, and have yet been unsuccessful in soliciting a response.
-
Argumentum ad populum deals with beliefs, not informalities in speech. If you can't deal with informalities on an internet forum, then you should find another way to spend your time.
No function f has yet been defined in this discussion. Assuming its existence is illogical.
If you wish to take the derivative of a function f, then please define a function f before doing so.
You don't understand function notation? Tell me then, what is the relation, if there is any, between Y and X in the equation?
-
What makes you think I don't know what a derivative is?
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
-
Is anybody familiar with what causes a mirage?
-
How the hell then is the formula applied to the real world? As long as we are not told how the formula is supposed to work we can only guess.
The equation is explained in detail on the wiki page linked in the first reply in this thread
Ok. I falsely thought there is more about it than what's in the wiki. Apologies for getting harsh.
-
Argumentum ad populum deals with beliefs, not informalities in speech. If you can't deal with informalities on an internet forum, then you should find another way to spend your time.
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, regardless of the attempted point being made. Either you are asserting that because it is commonly used, it is a valid way of communicating, in which case you are committing argumentum ad populum; or you are stating that it is commonly used and not concluding that it is a valid way of communicating, in which case it is irrelevant.
You don't understand function notation?
What makes you think that?
Tell me then, what is the relation, if there is any, between Y and X in the equation?
Precisely what the equation declares it to be.
What makes you think I don't know what a derivative is?
An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.
Please describe the intermediate logic you used to arrive at the conclusion that I do not know what a derivative is.
-
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, regardless of the attempted point being made. Either you are asserting that because it is commonly used, it is a valid way of communicating, in which case you are committing argumentum ad populum; or you are stating that it is commonly used and not concluding that it is a valid way of communicating, in which case it is irrelevant.
This is silly. We're not talking about a fundamental truth here. We are talking about a concept that is manmade with a notation that is manmade that is given room to evolve. With your logic, language should never have been invented. In a time when communication involved grunts and/or physical expressions, this would be equivalent to thinking that using one particular sound to mean a certain idea is argumentum ad populum. It is not appealing to the pressure of the masses, it is a more effective, efficient means of communication. With your logic, even your well thought out, succinct responses are argumentum ad populum. Our language has Latin roots. At some point, those Latin sounds that represent ideas changed massively to form modern english. Although it takes time for new words/phrases to catch on and become acceptible language, nobody will dispute that the phrase in question is acceptable language and effective, efficient means of communication. If that conclusion is true, then your assertion is irrelevant and without consequence.
What makes you think that?
y=f(x) is the notation used to express the idea that a variable y is a function with respect to x. y is a dependent variable. x is independent.
Precisely what the equation declares it to be.
Based on the previously given explanation of function notation, as well as information regarding the variables in the wiki, it appears that the value of y is dependent upon the value of x, in which case y can be formally expressed as a function of x, by the equation y=f(x).
-
With your logic, language should never have been invented. In a time when communication involved grunts and/or physical expressions, this would be equivalent to thinking that using one particular sound to mean a certain idea is argumentum ad populum.
What?
-
This is silly. We're not talking about a fundamental truth here. We are talking about a concept that is manmade with a notation that is manmade that is given room to evolve. With your logic, language should never have been invented. In a time when communication involved grunts and/or physical expressions, this would be equivalent to thinking that using one particular sound to mean a certain idea is argumentum ad populum. It is not appealing to the pressure of the masses, it is a more effective, efficient means of communication. With your logic, even your well thought out, succinct responses are argumentum ad populum. Our language has Latin roots. At some point, those Latin sounds that represent ideas changed massively to form modern english. Although it takes time for new words/phrases to catch on and become acceptible language, nobody will dispute that the phrase in question is acceptable language and effective, efficient means of communication. If that conclusion is true, then your assertion is irrelevant and without consequence.
This would be valid reasoning if any sense could be made of the phrase "the derivative of an equation". However, since an equation does not have a derivative, it is not. If everyone in the world responded to the question "what colour is the sky?" with "rhubarb", that would not make it a valid answer to the question because rhubarb is not a colour.
What makes you think that?
y=f(x) is the notation used to express the idea that a variable y is a function with respect to x. y is a dependent variable. x is independent.
Irrelevant.
Based on the previously given explanation of function notation, as well as information regarding the variables in the wiki, it appears that the value of y is dependent upon the value of x, in which case y can be formally expressed as a function of x, by the equation y=f(x).
It is not valid to use a function before declaring it.
It is possible to define a function f such that y = f(x). It is also possible to define a function f such that y = f(c). In each case, f would be a different function with a different derivative function.
-
With your logic, language should never have been invented. In a time when communication involved grunts and/or physical expressions, this would be equivalent to thinking that using one particular sound to mean a certain idea is argumentum ad populum.
What?
finish reading the post. It may clarify some things.
-
With your logic, language should never have been invented. In a time when communication involved grunts and/or physical expressions, this would be equivalent to thinking that using one particular sound to mean a certain idea is argumentum ad populum.
What?
finish reading the post. It may clarify some things.
I did, but sadly it immediately veered off into completely irrelevant (and completely wrong, but that's beside the point) stuff about how languages developed when they had already existed.
-
This would be valid reasoning if any sense could be made of the phrase "the derivative of an equation". However, since an equation does not have a derivative, it is not. If everyone in the world responded to the question "what colour is the sky?" with "rhubarb", that would not make it a valid answer to the question because rhubarb is not a colour.
straw man. As explained, the phrase in question is widely used and widely understood, and by your own admission, my reasoning is valid if those conditions are met. I can site multiple sources where the same phrase is used and understood by all present in the discussion. Would you like me to?
Irrelevant.
It's relevance hinges on your concession that y is a function of x.
It is not valid to use a function before declaring it.
It is possible to define a function f such that y = f(x). It is also possible to define a function f such that y = f(c). In each case, f would be a different function with a different derivative function.
By the defintions presented in previous posts, we know that if y is dependent on x (it is in the equation), y can be expressed as a function of x. Again, this can be written y=f(x). I refer to my post that stemmed the debate.
In the equation being discussed, I think everybody is assuming y=f(x).
This is me defining y as a function of x. You said I was naive to assume this. I request that, before anything else, you address this question. In the equation, is y a function of x?
-
With your logic, language should never have been invented. In a time when communication involved grunts and/or physical expressions, this would be equivalent to thinking that using one particular sound to mean a certain idea is argumentum ad populum.
What?
finish reading the post. It may clarify some things.
I did, but sadly it immediately veered off into completely irrelevant (and completely wrong, but that's beside the point) stuff about how languages developed when they had already existed.
I do not claim to understand the precise evolution of language, but I am certain that the essential concepts that I presented were accurate and relevant. Parsifal conceded that my reasoning was correct, given that conditions unrelated to your complaint were met.
-
I do not claim to understand the precise evolution of language
That's reassuring.
Parsifal conceded that my reasoning was correct
Argumentum ad Parsifalum.
-
I do not claim to understand the precise evolution of language
That's reassuring.
why is knowledge of the precise evolution of language necessary?
Parsifal conceded that my reasoning was correct
Argumentum ad Parsifalum.
I was bragging more than arguing.
-
straw man. As explained, the phrase in question is widely used and widely understood, and by your own admission, my reasoning is valid if those conditions are met. I can site multiple sources where the same phrase is used and understood by all present in the discussion. Would you like me to?
If it is so widely understood, then please tell me what the "derivative of the equation" is for this equation:
2 + 2 = 4
It's relevance hinges on your concession that y is a function of x.
It is irrelevant to my question, which asked what makes you think I do not understand function notation.
By the defintions presented in previous posts, we know that if y is dependent on x (it is in the equation), y can be expressed as a function of x. Again, this can be written y=f(x). I refer to my post that stemmed the debate.
Can be, yes. Was (prior to the post you refer to), no.
In the equation being discussed, I think everybody is assuming y=f(x).
This is me defining y as a function of x. You said I was naive to assume this.
No, I said that it was illogical to assume that y = f(x) before f has been defined.
I request that, before anything else, you address this question. In the equation, is y a function of x?
Yes.
-
This would be valid reasoning if any sense could be made of the phrase "the derivative of an equation".
Well it makes sense to the rest of us, I guess you're shit out of luck.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Reported for low-content posting.
-
If it is so widely understood, then please tell me what the "derivative of the equation" is for this equation:
2 + 2 = 4
This equation is not a function. I thought you took calculus.
It is irrelevant to my question, which asked what makes you think I do not understand function notation.
I defined function notation and explained it's relevance within the argument. You accepted the definition, yet you reply with a fragment of a thought. How is the definition of function notation irrelevant in understanding function notation? Even if it doesn't directly address your question, how is the information irrelevant?
Can be, yes. Was (prior to the post you refer to), no.
Did you forget subject nouns? That post didn't make much sense.
No, I said that it was illogical to assume that y = f(x) before f has been defined.
It is a function by the nature of the equation, and other information on the wiki verifies this.
Yes.
Maybe you should include this information on the wiki, so that people don't make unreasonable assumptions that are actually correct. Why is the act of defining y as a function of x necessary when it is inherent in the nature of the equation?
-
If it is so widely understood, then please tell me what the "derivative of the equation" is for this equation:
2 + 2 = 4
This equation is not a function. I thought you took calculus.
No equation is a function. That aside, we are discussing the phrase "derivative of the equation", not functions.
I defined function notation and explained it's relevance within the argument. You accepted the definition, yet you reply with a fragment of a thought. How is the definition of function notation irrelevant in understanding function notation? Even if it doesn't directly address your question, how is the information irrelevant?
It is irrelevant to my question, which asked what makes you think I do not understand function notation.
Can be, yes. Was (prior to the post you refer to), no.
Did you forget subject nouns? That post didn't make much sense.
My intended meaning was that, prior to the post in which you first used f(x), nobody had declared or defined such a function. While it is perfectly valid to assume such a function's existence after it has been declared, it is illogical to do so before it has been declared.
No, I said that it was illogical to assume that y = f(x) before f has been defined.
It is a function by the nature of the equation, and other information on the wiki verifies this.
Irrelevant.
Why is the act of defining y as a function of x necessary when it is inherent in the nature of the equation?
It is not.
-
No equation is a function. That aside, we are discussing the phrase "derivative of the equation", not functions.
I had poor word choice. The equation does not contain a function. If an equation contains a function, the phrase in question is valid.
It is irrelevant to my question, which asked what makes you think I do not understand function notation.
Although I did not directly address the question, the information presented provides a background with which we can establish mutual agreement upon fundamental concepts before your query is discussed. Your posting of 'irellevant' leads me to beleive you do not understand the connection between the phrase "function notation" and the equation y=f(x). Do you see any relation between these two things or are they two completely unrelated, distinct concepts, as your posts imply.
My intended meaning was that, prior to the post in which you first used f(x), nobody had declared or defined such a function. While it is perfectly valid to assume such a function's existence after it has been declared, it is illogical to do so before it has been declared.
The wiki declares the function, as I have stated more than once.
"Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero)."
Irrelevant.
Again, a function has already been defined. it is relevant.
It is not.
I'm glad we both agree that it is not necessary, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Have you forgotten what side you're arguing?
-
It is not.
I'm glad we both agree that it is not necessary [...]
hehehe i get it
he didn't specify what he means so you took the inverse of it
lol gud 1
-
It is not.
I'm glad we both agree that it is not necessary [...]
hehehe i get it
he didn't specify what he means so you took the inverse of it
lol gud 1
How can I take the "inverse" of what he posted? That doesn't even make sense. ur retarted.
-
It is not.
I'm glad we both agree that it is not necessary [...]
hehehe i get it
he didn't specify what he means so you took the inverse of it
lol gud 1
How can I take the "inverse" of what he posted? That doesn't even make sense. ur retarted.
To answer that question, let me first disambiguate my definition of "inverse":
something of a contrary nature or quality
In this case, the nature of what Parsifal said was (presumably) "This pertains to A and not to B"1. You (presumably deliberately) took it to mean "This pertains to B, and not to A". You have taken the inverse of the intended semantics.
1 - you're proven this yourself by contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction)
-
Why should I assume that Parsifal addressed anything other than the interrogative clause?
-
I had poor word choice. The equation does not contain a function. If an equation contains a function, the phrase in question is valid.
Here is an equation which contains a function:
q = f(x) + 2 * g(y) - 7p
Where the functions f and g are defined as:
- f(x) = x2 - 3
- g(y) = 1 / y
Please tell me what the derivative of this equation is.
Although I did not directly address the question, the information presented provides a background with which we can establish mutual agreement upon fundamental concepts before your query is discussed. Your posting of 'irellevant' leads me to beleive you do not understand the connection between the phrase "function notation" and the equation y=f(x). Do you see any relation between these two things or are they two completely unrelated, distinct concepts, as your posts imply.
They are related.
The wiki declares the function, as I have stated more than once.
"Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero)."
The wiki merely (and ambiguously; this was my error dating from four years ago) refers to y as being a function of x. It does not declare a function f, which is the point being contended.
Again, a function has already been defined. it is relevant.
No.
I'm glad we both agree that it is not necessary, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. Have you forgotten what side you're arguing?
I have made no such contradiction.
-
Here is an equation which contains a function:
q = f(x) + 2 * g(y) - 7p
Where the functions f and g are defined as:
- f(x) = x2 - 3
- g(y) = 1 / y
Please tell me what the derivative of this equation is.
In the equation you presented above, there are two functions. In the previous bendy light equation, there is one, so it is obvious which function's derivative is being calculated. I never stated that the only requirement for deriving is a function in an equation with no further instruction, just that a function is a necessary component.
They are related.
Would you like to withdraw your "irrelevant" then, or are they related, but my post not relevant? hmm..
The wiki merely (and ambiguously; this was my error dating from four years ago) refers to y as being a function of x. It does not declare a function f, which is the point being contended.
If the point is being debated as a result of your ambiguity, why did you not disambiguate your meaning as soon as it entered the discussion?
No.
No.
I have made no such contradiction.
I disagree. Yes, you have.