The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Bollybill on March 17, 2013, 10:29:51 AM
-
A few weeks ago I was looking at a thread about bendy light and I realized something: Bendy light would create a 'line' of suns.
It would be easier to show you rather than explain, so I did the math and plotted the path of the light from the sun from two rays. This is what I got: (I hope I know how to post pictures...)
(http://www5.mediafire.com/convkey/4e3a/fjb97uvhb0av1aqfg.jpg)
And this is the math for the two rays of light:
3,000=.75∛(β〖8,838〗^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
3,000=.75∛(β6,101,210,217,739,536/34,596,000,000)
4,000=∛β176,355.94339633298647242455775234
64,000,000,000=β176,355.94339633298647242455775234
β=362,902
y=.75∛(362,902*x^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
Y = (.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
3,000=.75∛(β〖7,000〗^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
4,000=∛(β2,401,000,000,000,000/34,596,000,000)
64,000,000,000=β69,401.086830847496820441669557174
β=922,175
y=.75∛(922,175*x^4/〖186,000〗^2 )
Y = (.75)((922175/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
So, as you can see (at about x=1,000), the rays meet, which would create the illusion of 2 suns. Of course, there are many more rays that that, so in reality it would just look like a longer sun. This would be apparent at all altitudes, being more apparent the higher up you go, which is not observed.
What do you think?
Edit: Wait a minute, need to fix picture...
Edit2: Yay
Edit3: See page 4 for a more accurate representation.
-
This will probably explain why the Antarctic appears to have 6 months of daylight around the edge.
Lol? What does that even have to do with the op?
You started it.
Pythagoras can't spell. Scrptimatic can't do math. Stop spamming this thread with inane quips at each other please. And stop trolling as well.
-
This will probably explain why the Antarctic appears to have 6 months of daylight around the edge.
Lol? What does that even have to do with the op?
You started it.
Pythagoras can't spell. Scrptimatic can't do math. Stop spamming this thread with inane quips at each other please. And stop trolling as well.
Same goes for you, clown.
I've never made a personal attack on you and never will. Try and respect the forum etiquette and contribute to the thread. Same for everyone else putting down Sceptimatics comment. The OP is interesting and deserves a conversation
-
Good for you. Don't call me clown and please make your point elsewhere.
-
β=362,902
β=922,175
Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.
-
β=362,902
β=922,175
Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.
The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?
-
β=362,902
β=922,175
Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.
That is just the point. The Bishop constant is no constant at all. It depends on where you are and where the Sun is. In the end you need intelligent air to get the idea of bendy light to work.
But of course I might be wrong and you can tell us, once and for all, the value of the Bishop constant. If it exists at all (as a constant, at least) it is pretty straightforward to calculate.
-
But of course I might be wrong and you can tell us, once and for all, the value of the Bishop constant. If it exists at all (as a constant, at least) it is pretty straightforward to calculate.
It does. It's 0. :P
-
That's odd, I expected there to be some discussion in this thread. Until that happens I guess we can assume bendy light is simply wrong.
-
The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?
It works by being constant.
-
The rays of light are viewed from different points, and so I solved the constant after putting in the x's. How else would it work?
It works by being constant.
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.
On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.
-
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.
The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.
On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.
How do you know that his value is correct?
-
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.
The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.
On the other hand, Whovian found a correct value for the amount that light bends on Earth due to factors other than refraction. We can declare this problem solved once and forever.
How do you know that his value is correct?
Can you give me an example of a constant, other than the Bishop's constant, that has a varying value when you solve for it in an equation?
-
Can you give me an example of a constant, other than the Bishop's constant, that has a varying value when you solve for it in an equation?
No. If I could, then it would not be a constant.
-
Can you give me an example of a constant, other than the Bishop's constant, that has a varying value when you solve for it in an equation?
No. If I could, then it would not be a constant.
So then solving for two different values of Bishop's constant in your equation shows that it is not a constant? Or was the math performed improperly?
-
So then solving for two different values of Bishop's constant in your equation shows that it is not a constant? Or was the math performed improperly?
The two sets of values the OP used to calculate the Bishop constant are each valid for a specific value of the Bishop constant. Since the Bishop constant has not yet been measured, it is possible that either or neither of them is correct, but not both.
Applying that statement to the graph in the OP, those two paths for light would never exist together. One or neither of them could be correct, but if one is correct then the other is not.
-
You have not even proved that it is a constant. You have not been able to calculate a value that is constant and that can be calculated for any usable set of conditions and works for any model of FE on this forum.
The Bishop constant being a constant is an axiom of bendy light theory. That is how it is defined. You cannot "prove" a definition.
Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science. And the claim made when the Bishop constant was defined was that there is a constant that, if placed in the cubic formula proposed, would make the calculations from the formula match real life observations.
The claim has never even been completed, since nobody has declared a value for this supposed constant. The claim itself has been invalidated by its own proponents by their reluctance to even make a complete claim.
So, the Bishop Constant is not even a constant, not even a working concept. It is just a tantrum.
-
So if you believe this:
The two sets of values the OP used to calculate the Bishop constant are each valid for a specific value of the Bishop constant. Since the Bishop constant has not yet been measured, it is possible that either or neither of them is correct, but not both.
Then why did you challenge Bollybill's finding of two different values of the Bishop's Constant? (quoted below)
β=362,902
β=922,175
Why do you have two different values of the Bishop constant for these two curves? The Bishop constant is just what it says, a constant.
-
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.
-
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.
No, that is a consequence of you misunderstanding bendy light. Parsifal is correct in asserting that a constant is by definition always the same number.
-
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.
No, that is a consequence of you misunderstanding bendy light. Parsifal is correct in asserting that a constant is by definition always the same number.
I never said anything about the constant, I'm saying that those two rays of light do coexist, and do defy the theory of bendy light.
-
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.
No, that is a consequence of you misunderstanding bendy light. Parsifal is correct in asserting that a constant is by definition always the same number.
Yes he is, but he also said that Bishop's Constant is not proven, and if the equations derive different values of it, with no operational error by the person calculating then there is obviously issues with the theory.
-
Bollybill,
I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?
Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.
-
Bollybill,
I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?
Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.
Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.
I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.
-
Bollybill,
I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?
Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.
Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.
I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.
Forget the second point, I got it now.
But regarding the first one: given that light bends at an unknown rate, doesn't that mean that we know neigther the real height of the sun nor the real distance of the sun to the d/n line?
-
Bollybill,
I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?
Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.
Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.
I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.
Forget the second point, I got it now.
But regarding the first one: given that light bends at an unknown rate, doesn't that mean that we know neither the real height of the sun nor the real distance of the sun to the d/n line?
That may be true, but I am going off of the height most people believe it is. As for the x, I'm pretty sure it is correct, although it ignores the path light would have to travel in 1/4 of a circle, complicating bendy light even further.
Even if they are unknown, this affect will still happen, which is why the math or the right equation (which Parsifal says is, of course, an estimate) is not that important to this thread/point.
-
Bollybill,
I don't understand how you came to your values for x and y. It seems you just randomly choose them. But I don't think you are allowed to do that. For if light bends, without knowing beta before, how can you know the coordinates of the sun or of any other point on the light ray?
Also I don't see where your second equation cooresponds to one of the graphs. I'm bad in math, so my statements could be very dull. I'm aware of my shortcommings, so please be kind to me.
Well, y is 3,000, the most common accepted hight for the sun. The first x is the distance from the sun to the 'day/night line' (I can't think of the correct term), and the second x is a random place slightly closer.
I'm not quite sure what your second statement means though.
Forget the second point, I got it now.
But regarding the first one: given that light bends at an unknown rate, doesn't that mean that we know neither the real height of the sun nor the real distance of the sun to the d/n line?
That may be true, but I am going off of the height most people believe it is. As for the x, I'm pretty sure it is correct, although it ignores the path light would have to travel in 1/4 of a circle, complicating bendy light even further.
Even if they are unknown, this affect will still happen, which is why the math or the right equation (which Parsifal says is, of course, an estimate) is not that important to this thread/point.
The value for the height of the sun's path was adopted from an early 20th century Christian sect led by a certain Wilbur G. Voliva. I dimly remember having read in a contemporary newspaper article they got the distance of the sun by comparing its angle at 2 different latitudes. They could have disproven their own theory by meassuring from a third point, but let's assume the value is right. But then the premise of this calculation is, that light does not bend, that is, that beta is 0. For any other value of beta the distance must be > 3000, given that light bends upwards.
Your second statement to me seems very true though. Regardless of the value of beta, we had always rays that cross. If that is correct, you have done quite valuable work for FET. A serious FE could now rely on your findings and search for a better equation that excludes the Bollybill-effect. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
-
Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science.
Incorrect. From Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/axiom):
"An established principle in some artistic practice or science that is universally received."
And the claim made when the Bishop constant was defined was that there is a constant that, if placed in the cubic formula proposed, would make the calculations from the formula match real life observations.
No.
The claim has never even been completed, since nobody has declared a value for this supposed constant. The claim itself has been invalidated by its own proponents by their reluctance to even make a complete claim.
No.
So, the Bishop Constant is not even a constant, not even a working concept. It is just a tantrum.
No.
So if you believe this:
The two sets of values the OP used to calculate the Bishop constant are each valid for a specific value of the Bishop constant. Since the Bishop constant has not yet been measured, it is possible that either or neither of them is correct, but not both.
Then why did you challenge Bollybill's finding of two different values of the Bishop's Constant? (quoted below)
Because he is asserting that they are both valid simultaneously.
How would they not exist together? That is a consequence of the equation, and of the theory itself. Even if there was no equation presented yet this problem would occur.
No, it would not. If you would care to provide some reasoning for this, then I will be happy to refute it.
Yes he is, but he also said that Bishop's Constant is not proven, and if the equations derive different values of it, with no operational error by the person calculating then there is obviously issues with the theory.
No, it means that the two curves are alternatives. If one represents reality, then the other does not. You cannot start with an arbitrary assumption (that two paths for light are valid together) and then use that to disprove the theory you are working with. The initial assumption must be justified.
and the second x is a random place slightly closer.
Almost 2000 miles is not "slightly" closer. The path of light at the second observer would not even come close to being horizontal, and yet you have it represented that way. Why?
Even if they are unknown, this affect will still happen, which is why the math or the right equation (which Parsifal says is, of course, an estimate) is not that important to this thread/point.
Please justify this statement.
-
No, it means that the two curves are alternatives. If one represents reality, then the other does not. You cannot start with an arbitrary assumption (that two paths for light are valid together) and then use that to disprove the theory you are working with. The initial assumption must be justified.
This isn't the same ray of light. Obviously two different rays can and do coexist, and by applying your equation to them this is the result produced.
Almost 2000 miles is not "slightly" closer. The path of light at the second observer would not even come close to being horizontal, and yet you have it represented that way. Why?
Alright I didn't mean slightly but yea, it is closer of course. The second ray is following your equation too, so there must be a flaw with it. Like I said, the math doesn't even matter 100%, but I'll use it so long as you provide the equation. If I did graph a closer point this would still show up, I just chose that number.
Please justify this statement.
You have said yourself that the light would have to bend on its way back up. Also, we both know the equation you have presented may not be the most accurate, but it still portrays the theory. However, it still represents what would happen in reality. Even if the equation were to change, this problem would still arise, due to the light still acting similarly.
-
This isn't the same ray of light. Obviously two different rays can and do coexist, and by applying your equation to them this is the result produced.
Let me dumben this down for you. Gravitational acceleration in RET is (roughly) constant. If you drop two items out of your window, they should pretty much share g. If I tell you that, while remaining on Earth, I dropped one item with g=9.81ms^-2 and another item with g=60ms^-2, the problem is not that Newtonian physics suddenly stopped working. The problem is that I arbitrarily decided to fuck with a constant. That's exactly what you're doing here.
-
This isn't the same ray of light. Obviously two different rays can and do coexist, and by applying your equation to them this is the result produced.
No. You started with assumptions about the path of light (specifically, two points that it passes through and the gradient at one of those points). You did not produce this path from the equation.
Alright I didn't mean slightly but yea, it is closer of course. The second ray is following your equation too, so there must be a flaw with it.
No, only with your understanding of it. Again, you started with an assumption that makes no sense; that the light is horizontal at the second observer. You then applied my equation to your nonsensical starting assumptions and produced nonsensical results. The flaw is in your assumptions, not the equation.
Like I said, the math doesn't even matter 100%, but I'll use it so long as you provide the equation. If I did graph a closer point this would still show up, I just chose that number.
Correct, but the fact that you chose a point so far away from the first observer makes the flaw in your reasoning readily apparent.
You have said yourself that the light would have to bend on its way back up.
Yes.
Also, we both know the equation you have presented may not be the most accurate, but it still portrays the theory.
Yes.
However, it still represents what would happen in reality.
If bendy light is true, yes.
Even if the equation were to change, this problem would still arise, due to the light still acting similarly.
As long as you continue to make baseless initial assumptions, then yes, problems will continue to arise with your conclusions.
-
What Parsifal is trying to get at is that if the observer of the sun is not at the day/night barrier, then the sun will not be observed to be at the horizon. Both lines on your graph would produce the illusion that the sun is on the horizon at both points, which is not observed in reality.
-
Parsifal, can you make a graphic of it, with two light rays in directions similar to those that bollybill used to show how they dont intersect?
-
This isn't the same ray of light. Obviously two different rays can and do coexist, and by applying your equation to them this is the result produced.
Let me dumben this down for you. Gravitational acceleration in RET is (roughly) constant. If you drop two items out of your window, they should pretty much share g. If I tell you that, while remaining on Earth, I dropped one item with g=9.81ms^-2 and another item with g=60ms^-2, the problem is not that Newtonian physics suddenly stopped working. The problem is that I arbitrarily decided to fuck with a constant. That's exactly what you're doing here.
The earth's gravitational constant is well known, the value of the Bishop constant has never been stated.
-
No. You started with assumptions about the path of light (specifically, two points that it passes through and the gradient at one of those points). You did not produce this path from the equation.
Honest question here, how is that not from the equation? I showed my work, as you know, in the OP.
No, only with your understanding of it. Again, you started with an assumption that makes no sense; that the light is horizontal at the second observer. You then applied my equation to your nonsensical starting assumptions and produced nonsensical results. The flaw is in your assumptions, not the equation.
I never assumed the second ray is viewed as horizontal, that would be ridiculous. Although, according to this (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57515.0.html#.UU3r2mdXqsQ) (the last picture) light would be viewed as horizontal from two separate points many miles away, although the light would have to take a left/right turn in addition to the horizontal bending. Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
-
The earth's gravitational constant is well known, the value of the Bishop constant has never been stated.
Let's talk about an unspecified planet X, then. We know that the gravitational acceleration is still going to be a constant, but we don't know its value. However, we will never try to reason about the constant having two values at once, because that would be silly.
-
The earth's gravitational constant is well known, the value of the Bishop constant has never been stated.
Let's talk about an unspecified planet X, then. We know that the gravitational constant is still going to be a constant, but we don't know its value. However, we will never try to reason about the constant having two values at once, because that would be silly.
Then which value is correct, or is constant a misnomer? Surely the creator of the equation would have given us the value.
-
The earth's gravitational constant is well known, the value of the Bishop constant has never been stated.
Let's talk about an unspecified planet X, then. We know that the gravitational constant is still going to be a constant, but we don't know its value. However, we will never try to reason about the constant having two values at once, because that would be silly.
Don't confuse G with g (I know right).
G (gravitational constant)=6.67398x10^-11m^3kg^-1s^-2. This does not vary and is the constant we speak of when talking about the gravitational constant.
g (local gravitational strength)=(Gm1m2)/r^2. This varies from place to place.
-
Then which value is correct
Judging by the OP's methodology, it's not very likely that either of your arbitrary guesses is correct.
or is constant a misnomer?
It is not.
Surely the creator of the equation would have given us the value.
"Surely"? I've only just named a situation where it wouldn't be given. The value of the constant has not yet been measured. This is why it hasn't been provided.
Don't confuse G with g[...]
Yes. Hence the "roughly" in
Gravitational acceleration in RET is (roughly) constant.
Also, it was precisely to avoid confusion between G and g that I didn't use "G" nor "g". I referred to gravitational acceleration as "gravitational acceleration".
-
Then which value is correct
Judging by the OP's methodology, it's not very likely that either of your arbitrary guesses is correct.
or is constant a misnomer?
It is not.
Surely the creator of the equation would have given us the value.
"Surely"? I've only just named a situation where it wouldn't be given. The value of the constant has not yet been measured. This is why it hasn't been provided.
Don't confuse G with g[...]
Yes. Hence the "roughly" in
Gravitational acceleration in RET is (roughly) constant.
Also, it was precisely to avoid confusion between G and g that I didn't use "G" nor "g". I referred to gravitational acceleration as "gravitational acceleration".
You did not use gravitational acceleration in the Planet X example. I am glad there is no confusion.
-
You did not use gravitational acceleration in the Planet X example. I am glad there is no confusion.
Egg on my face. I corrected my post now.
-
You did not use gravitational acceleration in the Planet X example. I am glad there is no confusion.
Egg on my face. I corrected my post now.
Fair enough. No egg required. Glad it's cleared up.
-
Axioms exist in Mathematics, not in Science.
Incorrect. From Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/axiom):
"An established principle in some artistic practice or science that is universally received."
So, the third definition in Wiktionary is the best you can do? Can't you even get a real scientist to define what an axiom is for the world of science?
But, even if we accept that there are some scientists who think that axioms are theoretically applicable to science, (and that is a huge if) you will never find a single scientific organization of any importance that postulates a single claim as an axiom. No respectable scientist in any field of science has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that there is a higher grade of scientifically accepted knowledge than the theory.
And now, if we want to say that the Bishop constant is even related to some kind of axiom, we cannot even make that relationship with the definition in Wiktionary. There is no universal reception of the idea of a flat Earth. Even in the community of flat Earthers (all ten of them) there is no universal reception of the idea of bendy light. And even among the three or so members who accept the existence of bendy light there is no universal reception of a single thing about the Bishop Constant, except for its existence. So, if "Universally received" means three people, then it is an axiom of human society that I should be "King of Humanity and All the Lower Species".
-
No. You started with assumptions about the path of light (specifically, two points that it passes through and the gradient at one of those points). You did not produce this path from the equation.
Honest question here, how is that not from the equation? I showed my work, as you know, in the OP.
You used the equation to fill in intermediate points in the path. The path is not fully derivated from the equation because you started with assumptions that the equation does not provide.
I never assumed the second ray is viewed as horizontal, that would be ridiculous.
Then why is the second ray assumed to be horizontal at ground level in your working in the OP?
Although, according to this (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57515.0.html#.UU3r2mdXqsQ) (the last picture) light would be viewed as horizontal from two separate points many miles away
Yes, at sunrise and sunset, which would be on opposite sides of the Sun.
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
So, the third definition in Wiktionary is the best you can do? Can't you even get a real scientist to define what an axiom is for the world of science?
But, even if we accept that there are some scientists who think that axioms are theoretically applicable to science, (and that is a huge if) you will never find a single scientific organization of any importance that postulates a single claim as an axiom. No respectable scientist in any field of science has ever, to my knowledge, claimed that there is a higher grade of scientifically accepted knowledge than the theory.
No.
And even among the three or so members who accept the existence of bendy light there is no universal reception of a single thing about the Bishop Constant, except for its existence.
Since it is defined as a constant, accepting its existence is to accept that it is a constant. If it were not constant, then the Bishop constant would not exist, because it would not be constant.
So, if "Universally received" means three people, then it is an axiom of human society that I should be "King of Humanity and All the Lower Species".
"Universally received" within a domain means that it is universally received within that domain. If your domain is "bendy light theory", then the requirement is that it be universally received within the domain of bendy light theory. If your domain is "human society", then the requirement is that it be universally received within all of human society.
This is the debate section of the forum. In order to produce meaningful debate, there is an expectation that you have some basic working knowledge of fundamental concepts, such as definitions of words. I will not be providing any more explanations of simple concepts for your benefit; if you would like clarification on such things, please use a more appropriate forum to request information.
-
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.
-
So, if "Universally received" means three people, then it is an axiom of human society that I should be "King of Humanity and All the Lower Species".
"Universally received" within a domain means that it is universally received within that domain. If your domain is "bendy light theory", then the requirement is that it be universally received within the domain of bendy light theory. If your domain is "human society", then the requirement is that it be universally received within all of human society.
This is the debate section of the forum. In order to produce meaningful debate, there is an expectation that you have some basic working knowledge of fundamental concepts, such as definitions of words. I will not be providing any more explanations of simple concepts for your benefit; if you would like clarification on such things, please use a more appropriate forum to request information.
Then, by Parsifal's definition, every claim ever made is an axiom because it is held true among those who hold it true. Nothing else can be said about Parsifal's understanding of axioms. No, you do not get to define the domain for your axiom anyway you like. The domain is all people who show any interest at all in the subject.
But wait a minute. "universally received" in the context of this discussion would, at the very least, include the three FE believers who hold bendy light true and Bollybill, who even calculated the value of the constant, only to find at least two values for it. Therefore among the four of you who are interested in the Bishop Constant there are only 3/4 who still accept it as a constant. "Universally received" does no longer apply to this "axiom".
The word "axiom" refers to a lot more than what Parsifal wants it to refer. So much so that in Science nothing is held as an axiom.
-
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.
The problem is that you have several constraints on the problem you are trying to solve. The "constant" must be always constant, the observed apparent position of the Sun must match the value that comes from the formula, the height of the Sun above the flat Earth must remain constant, among other things.
You can set any group of constraints except one and find if that one holds. For example, you can set all the other constraints except for the one about the height of the Sun, and check whether the calculated height is always 3000 miles. Or, as Bollybill did, you can set all the constraints except for the one about the Bishop Constant, and check whether the supposed constant varies.
The fact that the supposed "constant" varies does not mean that Bollybill varied it on purpose. It means that in a wrong model at least one assumption always fails.
-
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.
That's the point, it can't be a constant. I would upload a picture to explain it but for some reason I'm having trouble. Try going to this website (http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php) and put in these two lines (you will need to zoom out):
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
They are the same as in my first picture, but in the second I used the Bishop Constant from the first equation, like people have suggested. When they are plotted, you will see that not only do the two lines cross, but there is no origin from where the two lines come from (the sun at ~ (9,000, 3,000)). This is only true if the 'constant' does indeed change like in the OP.
-
You used the equation to fill in intermediate points in the path. The path is not fully derivated from the equation because you started with assumptions that the equation does not provide.
That's my point, this does not happen yet the equation makes it look like it would.
Yes, at sunrise and sunset, which would be on opposite sides of the Sun.
No, I'm talking about the same side.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
Then what is the value of this constant? Also, what is the constant even measuring?
Edit: Does anyone know the distance from the person just starting to see the light be horizontal (sunset) to the person where it is ending? Oddly phrased lol...
-
That's the point, it can't be a constant. I would upload a picture to explain it but for some reason I'm having trouble. Try going to this website (http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php) and put in these two lines (you will need to zoom out):
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
They are the same as in my first picture, but in the second I used the Bishop Constant from the first equation, like people have suggested. When they are plotted, you will see that not only do the two lines cross, but there is no origin from where the two lines come from (the sun at ~ (9,000, 3,000)). This is only true if the constant does indeed change like in the OP.
So what you're saying is that you've created a new ray of light that for some inexplicable reason doesn't come from the Sun, and this disproves bendy light?
I've just disproven RET. Check out the blue ray in this diagram, it doesn't even come from the Sun:
(http://img.sjm.so/ret_disproof)
Clearly light can't travel in straight lines, since this doesn't happen.
-
You used the equation to fill in intermediate points in the path. The path is not fully derivated from the equation because you started with assumptions that the equation does not provide.
That's my point, this does not happen yet the equation makes it look like it would.
No, your initial assumptions are what produces the nonsensical results. How many times do I need to spell this out?
Yes, at sunrise and sunset, which would be on opposite sides of the Sun.
No, I'm talking about the same side.
Well, there is actually a continuous circle around the Sun at which it appears to be on the horizon. However, the two points in your graph are not equidistant from the Sun.
Then what is the value of this constant?
Unknown.
Also, what is the constant even measuring?
Its physical interpretation is described on the wiki (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator).
-
That's the point, it can't be a constant. I would upload a picture to explain it but for some reason I'm having trouble. Try going to this website (http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php) and put in these two lines (you will need to zoom out):
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
They are the same as in my first picture, but in the second I used the Bishop Constant from the first equation, like people have suggested. When they are plotted, you will see that not only do the two lines cross, but there is no origin from where the two lines come from (the sun at ~ (9,000, 3,000)). This is only true if the constant does indeed change like in the OP.
So what you're saying is that you've created a new ray of light that for some inexplicable reason doesn't come from the Sun, and this disproves bendy light?
I've just disproven RET. Check out the blue ray in this diagram, it doesn't even come from the Sun:
(http://img.sjm.so/ret_disproof)
Clearly light can't travel in straight lines, since this doesn't happen.
Lol, the ray of light is supposed to come from the same source, it's a ray of sunlight. It doesn't disprove bendy light or the equation, just that the Bishop Constant is not a constant.
-
Lol, the ray of light is supposed to come from the same source, it's a ray of sunlight. It doesn't disprove bendy light or the equation, just that the Bishop Constant is not a constant.
No, the only thing it proves is that your understanding of bendy light is flawed. You are making the following assumptions which are not directly imposed by bendy light theory or the equation in the wiki (note: I've helpfully filled in the units you forgot to include in your calculations):
- There exists a ray of light which, for a given co-ordinate system in miles:
- passes through the point (0,0); and
- has a gradient of 0 at x = 0.
- There exists a second ray of light which, for a given co-ordinate system in miles:
- passes through the point (1838,0); and
- has a gradient of 0 at x = 1838;
- The Bishop constant has a value of 369902 mi s-2.
- The Sun has an altitude of 3000 mi.
You then correctly observe that there is no point at which these lines cross where y = 3000. The error you make is to conclude that the Bishop constant is not a constant, rather than considering that one of your other assumptions may be flawed (hint: removing any of your three other assumptions also produces consistent results).
-
You used the equation to fill in intermediate points in the path. The path is not fully derivated from the equation because you started with assumptions that the equation does not provide.
That's my point, this does not happen yet the equation makes it look like it would.
No, your initial assumptions are what produces the nonsensical results. How many times do I need to spell this out?
If you do not like BollyBill's assumptions, then why don't you give yours? The very assumption that a cubic formula, of which the Bishop Constant is just the constant of the cubic part, is, as far as I know, nonsensical. And you have not given even a single argument to the contrary.
If you want to even claim some kind of sense in the cubic formula with the Bishop constant then you have to show it yourself.
-
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.
That's the point, it can't be a constant. I would upload a picture to explain it but for some reason I'm having trouble. Try going to this website (http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php) and put in these two lines (you will need to zoom out):
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
They are the same as in my first picture, but in the second I used the Bishop Constant from the first equation, like people have suggested. When they are plotted, you will see that not only do the two lines cross, but there is no origin from where the two lines come from (the sun at ~ (9,000, 3,000)). This is only true if the 'constant' does indeed change like in the OP.
Thank you! Now I understand the problem. I should refrain from making statements, when they are only out of intuition, for I know from experience that my intuition often prooves wrong, especially in things like that. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/embarrassed.gif)You cleared that up for me.
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
-
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.
That's the point, it can't be a constant. I would upload a picture to explain it but for some reason I'm having trouble. Try going to this website (http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php) and put in these two lines (you will need to zoom out):
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
They are the same as in my first picture, but in the second I used the Bishop Constant from the first equation, like people have suggested. When they are plotted, you will see that not only do the two lines cross, but there is no origin from where the two lines come from (the sun at ~ (9,000, 3,000)). This is only true if the 'constant' does indeed change like in the OP.
Thank you! Now I understand the problem. I should refrain from making statements, when they are only out of intuition, for I know from experience that my intuition often prooves wrong, especially in things like that. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/embarrassed.gif)You cleared that up for me.
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
Perhaps in a sufficiently deep chasm?
-
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
If the light curves away above the ground, we'd never see it. If it curves at the ground, we get the Bollybill Effect. If it does not curve above or at the ground, it hits the ground while traveling relatively straight, like rays of sunlight would without the bendy light effect. At least, that's how it looks to me.
-
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
If the light curves away above the ground, we'd never see it. If it curves at the ground, we get the Bollybill Effect. If it does not curve above or at the ground, it hits the ground while traveling relatively straight, like rays of sunlight would without the bendy light effect. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Did you now repeat what I said or did you correct me? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)
-
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
If the light curves away above the ground, we'd never see it. If it curves at the ground, we get the Bollybill Effect. If it does not curve above or at the ground, it hits the ground while traveling relatively straight, like rays of sunlight would without the bendy light effect. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Did you now repeat what I said or did you correct me? (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif)
Pretty much said the same thing in a different way. Also, expanded just slightly on what would happen in the three scenarios.
-
Your equation does allow for this to happen though, and that seems like a problem to me.
It only allows for this to happen if you disregard the fact that the Bishop constant is a constant. Your scenario is impossible precisely because the Bishop constant is a constant.
If the Bishop constant is constant - and I also don't understand why the OP doesn't keep it as such - rays emitted from the sun indeed wouldn't cross. That was not clear to me in my previous post.
That's the point, it can't be a constant. I would upload a picture to explain it but for some reason I'm having trouble. Try going to this website (http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php) and put in these two lines (you will need to zoom out):
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*x^4)^(1/3)
(.75)((369902/186000^2)*(x-1838)^4)^(1/3)
They are the same as in my first picture, but in the second I used the Bishop Constant from the first equation, like people have suggested. When they are plotted, you will see that not only do the two lines cross, but there is no origin from where the two lines come from (the sun at ~ (9,000, 3,000)). This is only true if the 'constant' does indeed change like in the OP.
Thank you! Now I understand the problem. I should refrain from making statements, when they are only out of intuition, for I know from experience that my intuition often prooves wrong, especially in things like that. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/embarrassed.gif)You cleared that up for me.
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
Perhaps in a sufficiently deep chasm?
Certainly not! For then the bending rate of the rays at ground level would be too low and we had no sunsets.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.
-
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
It depends on which ray of light you are talking about. They do not all need to have their minimum at the same altitude (and it would not make much sense for them to).
Perhaps in a sufficiently deep chasm?
A ray of light does not need to reach its minimum in order for us to conceive of one for the path it follows. Similarly, using straight light, blocking the path of a beam with your hand doesn't prevent you from extrapolating where it would go if your hand was removed.
If the light curves away above the ground, we'd never see it.
Correct. This is one way of describing what causes night.
If it curves at the ground, we get the Bollybill Effect.
Incorrect.
If it does not curve above or at the ground, it hits the ground while traveling relatively straight, like rays of sunlight would without the bendy light effect. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Correct. This is what happens throughout most of the day.
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.
I would like to reiterate Homesick Martian's last post, because he is quite correct here:
But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.
This is something that a lot of people seem to be missing.
-
I would like to reiterate Homesick Martian's last post, because he is quite correct here:
But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.
This is something that a lot of people seem to be missing.
Of what use is an equation with an unknown (and possibly unknowable) constant? How does one confirm or refute its validity?
-
OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.
It depends on which ray of light you are talking about. They do not all need to have their minimum at the same altitude (and it would not make much sense for them to).
This is exactly the point I'm unsure about. I'm still not sure if i understand the subject, for my competence is limited, so I have the following question:
1.Every light ray emitted from the sun at a certain point of time shall be conceived as a function fr(x) = y , where y is the height above the earth plane and x is a spacial direction perpendicular to it, neglecting the third spacial direction. There is, of course, an infinite number or lightrays and thus functions: f1, f2, f3.....fn
2.The equation y = (.75)((b/c^2)*x^4)^(1/3) is supposed to be the formula for the bending behaviour of a light ray. b is meant as beta, the Bishop-constant.y is defined differently in the wiki, but I assume here that the direction of decreasing dark energy potential is factually equivalent to the height above the plane.
3.Doesn't that mean that all the functions f1, f2, f3......fn have the function g(x) = y = (.75)((b/c^2)*x^4)^(1/3) as their 1. derivative function?
-
Cause Bollybill applied the function I called g(x) above, as if it would directly describe the path of the light ray. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/Smileys/classic/huh.gif) But to do that he had to change it up doing some reasoning I still don't understand, although I thought I did.
-
To my understanding, bendy light is horizontal at basically every altitude (near ~8,000 miles away), although not when it is closer to the sun and of a lower Y of course.
Honestly, the math doesn't really matter to what I am describing. The math is only used to help describe what I am saying and to show how bendy light apparently behaves. I know people have said earlier that the line 2,000 miles closer isn't horizontal and that's absolutely true, but I just graphed that particular line to demonstrate the idea, but not to be how it 100% works. Even if you graph closer lines, what I have been saying still happens.
I did a little research to find out how far apart the lines should be, and found that the sunset at the equator lasts 2 min. After some math, that's ~34.6 miles (correct?). This is using the constant the same as the first line, as it apparently is:
(http://www12.mediafire.com/convkey/ba88/oz6o5m55mt93ol9fg.jpg)
-
Could someone please provide a link to the source of these equations for Bendy Light? I've been struggling to follow this thread. I've been trying to read up on bendy light but it seems like there are contradicting sources of information. Is it on the wiki? If so I haven't been able to find it.
Cheers
-
Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
-
Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator)
Thanks.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.
Is your formula substantiated? No.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.
Is your formula substantiated? No.
We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.
Is your formula substantiated? No.
We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.
Maybe start a new thread?
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.
Is your formula substantiated? No.
We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.
For the formula to have any validity it must match observational/experimental data. I'm not a scientist and have no means of obtaining that data. I am suggesting that when such a formula is put forward it should be as a result of observations. At first, like many theories, it may be crude but with further observations it should become more refined. The fact that the value of the Bishop constant has not been calculated is evidence that either
1) The formula's proponent has given up on the observations
or
2) The formula's proponent realises the formula is unsubstantiated garbage.
Furthermore if it is a formula which uncovers a new law of nature it should be published in peer reviewed journals not stated on an internet forum. Silly me , I'm forgetting about the conspiracy of scientists.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.
Is your formula substantiated? No.
We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.
For the formula to have any validity it must match observational/experimental data. I'm not a scientist and have no means of obtaining that data. I am suggesting that when such a formula is put forward it should be as a result of observations. At first, like many theories, it may be crude but with further observations it should become more refined. The fact that the value of the Bishop constant has not been calculated is evidence that either
1) The formula's proponent has given up on the observations
or
2) The formula's proponent realises the formula is unsubstantiated garbage.
Furthermore if it is a formula which uncovers a new law of nature it should be published in peer reviewed journals not stated on an internet forum. Silly me , I'm forgetting about the conspiracy of scientists.
I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".
EDIT bet
-
I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".
That may be perfectly true, we'll never know will we? I'm more homesick than you.
-
I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".
That may be perfectly true, we'll never know will we? I'm more homesick than you.
I like the way your avatar is looking on us. He painfully knows but doesn't complain. Who is it, by the way?
-
I like the way your avatar is looking on us. He painfully knows but doesn't complain. Who is it, by the way?
Euler.
-
I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".
That may be perfectly true, we'll never know will we? I'm more homesick than you.
I like the way your avatar is looking on us. He painfully knows but doesn't complain. Who is it, by the way?
The avatar is Leonhard Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. He was also in the Guinness book of records for having a superb memory.
The reason he looks the way he does is because at one point in his life he was blind in one eye due to cataracts. He later went blind in the other eye for the same reason. Although he spent the last 17 years of his life in blindness it did not diminish his mathematical output. He trained a couple of his children to act as his amanuenses and this, combined with that superb memory, meant he was still producing ground-breaking work right up to his death.
By all accounts he was a very kind and humble man. I suggest you look up some of his works.
-
Parsifal, I don't know if you saw it but I addressed the problem of the light rays being too far away.
-
What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.
But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.
But how could we compute the circumference or area of a circle if we did not know the value of the constant "Pi" or 3.14...... ? It seems I got lost somewhere along this thread ?
So did I.
-
Could someone please provide a link to the source of these equations for Bendy Light? I've been struggling to follow this thread. I've been trying to read up on bendy light but it seems like there are contradicting sources of information. Is it on the wiki? If so I haven't been able to find it.
Cheers
jason_85. : Take my advice.
Don't waste your time ! Don't even try to find it ! I don't think you ever would find it on this website or anywhere else on the Internet....or anywhere else for that matter ? ;D
It's funny because we already gave him the source.
-
Could someone please provide a link to the source of these equations for Bendy Light? I've been struggling to follow this thread. I've been trying to read up on bendy light but it seems like there are contradicting sources of information. Is it on the wiki? If so I haven't been able to find it.
Cheers
jason_85. : Take my advice.
Don't waste your time ! Don't even try to find it ! I don't think you ever would find it on this website or anywhere else on the Internet....or anywhere else for that matter ? ;D
It's funny because we already gave him the source.
You linked him to the equation. He asked about the source of the equation. Which I recall Parsifal saying he could not make heads or tails of how he came to this equation finally.
-
Yeah I had a quick look at it.
-
Is there any comment on the new graph or can we assume bendy light is disproved? I'm sure a FEer would say otherwise, but no one has commented on it yet.
-
I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.
-
I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.
What does that even mean?
-
I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.
This statement is totally wrong. Nobody researches bendy light per se, because this would mean that light's bending is taken for grant. Scientists study light, period. If it bends or not we will see eventually. Light is a natural phenomenon studied from centuries and decidedly it doesn't bend in the sense flat earthers want us to believe. It bends only in certain circumstances: refraction trough different substances with different refraction index or presence of gravitational lenses.
The fun thing is that light coming from celestial bodies bends the other way around respect to bogus "bendy light": it makes stars, sun or moon and stuff to be slighty higher on the horizon, not lower. It is called atmospheric refraction and it is well documented and demonstrated. This is science, baby, and you can't do anything about it.
-
I kind of agree though, but no one has addressed the new picture.