The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: digitalartist on September 19, 2011, 01:36:15 PM

Title: The problems with bendy light
Post by: digitalartist on September 19, 2011, 01:36:15 PM
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Tausami on September 19, 2011, 02:11:02 PM
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: EmperorZhark on September 19, 2011, 03:15:55 PM
Where's the physics behind this?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: digitalartist on September 19, 2011, 10:09:52 PM
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.

So I ask again why isn't laser light affected?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Tausami on September 20, 2011, 05:40:57 PM
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.

So I ask again why isn't laser light affected?

It is.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 21, 2011, 11:01:57 AM
It is kind of funny to read the comebacks from the flat earthers.  When a theory is disproven, they simply say, "Yes, I agree it is not possible, that is why most of us believe this other theory."  You can almost do that indefinitely.  But, the people who believe in the round earth never change their theories and, as of yet, I have seen little evidence (other than conjecture) to prove that this theory is wrong.

Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2011, 12:09:19 PM
But, the people who believe in the round earth never change their theories and, as of yet, I have seen little evidence (other than conjecture) to prove that this theory is wrong.

RE'ers change their theories all the time.

People come here claiming that toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and when we show them the Snopes page, they change their tune.

People come here claiming that gravity is proven and is caused by a curvature of space time, and when we point out the fact that scientists don't know whether gravity is a bending of space or a subatomic particle called the graviton, they change their tune.

People come here claiming that Christopher Columbus proved that the world was round, and when we point out that he did no such thing, they change their tune.

People come here claiming that the earth is round because raindrops are round, and when we point out that raindrops are actually flat, and that it's a bad analogy anyway because raindrops are held together by surface tension and the earth is not, they change their tune.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 03, 2011, 02:06:23 AM
What an idiotic comparison.

Quote
People come here claiming that toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and when we show them the Snopes page, they change their tune.
The Coriolis Effect is a documented phenomenon caused by the rotation of the Earth. It is used all of the time, for example, in meteorology.
Examples:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/rotation-earth-toilet-baseball4.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/rotation-earth-toilet-baseball4.htm)
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml)
The fact that there is a common misconception regarding the rotation  of water in a toilet bowl is irrelevant and, as usual, you are using it here as a straw man.

Quote
People come here claiming that gravity is proven and is caused by a curvature of space time, and when we point out the fact that scientists don't know whether gravity is a bending of space or a subatomic particle called the graviton, they change their tune.
Whether it is due to the bending of space time or a subatomic particle is irrelevant. The fact that gravity exists is not disputed. How it works is a constantly evolving theory in physics, i.e. Newtonian gravity, Einstein's Relativity, etc.
Quote
People come here claiming that Christopher Columbus proved that the world was round, and when we point out that he did no such thing, they change their tune.
Columbus only sailed as far as America. It was Magellan who circumnavigated the globe. Disproving claims that Columbus proved the Earth was round is trivial.
Here's where you claim that Magellan sailed in a circle on a flat surface. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Quote
People come here claiming that the earth is round because raindrops are round, and when we point out that raindrops are actually flat, and that it's a bad analogy anyway because raindrops are held together by surface tension and the earth is not, they change their tune.
As you said, it is a bad analogy. Disproving this is meaningless.

Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Hazbollah on October 03, 2011, 12:45:06 PM
What an idiotic comparison.

Quote
People come here claiming that toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and when we show them the Snopes page, they change their tune.
The Coriolis Effect is a documented phenomenon caused by the rotation of the Earth. It is used all of the time, for example, in meteorology.
Examples:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/rotation-earth-toilet-baseball4.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/rotation-earth-toilet-baseball4.htm)
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml)
The fact that there is a common misconception regarding the rotation  of water in a toilet bowl is irrelevant and, as usual, you are using it here as a straw man.

Quote
People come here claiming that gravity is proven and is caused by a curvature of space time, and when we point out the fact that scientists don't know whether gravity is a bending of space or a subatomic particle called the graviton, they change their tune.
Whether it is due to the bending of space time or a subatomic particle is irrelevant. The fact that gravity exists is not disputed. How it works is a constantly evolving theory in physics, i.e. Newtonian gravity, Einstein's Relativity, etc.
Quote
People come here claiming that Christopher Columbus proved that the world was round, and when we point out that he did no such thing, they change their tune.
Columbus only sailed as far as America. It was Magellan who circumnavigated the globe. Disproving claims that Columbus proved the Earth was round is trivial.
Here's where you claim that Magellan sailed in a circle on a flat surface. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

He'd have had a job circumnavigating the globe, for two reasons. One, the earth is not a globe; and two, he was dead for half the way.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 03, 2011, 01:27:06 PM
What an idiotic comparison.

Quote
People come here claiming that toilets flush in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and when we show them the Snopes page, they change their tune.
The Coriolis Effect is a documented phenomenon caused by the rotation of the Earth. It is used all of the time, for example, in meteorology.
Examples:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/rotation-earth-toilet-baseball4.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/rotation-earth-toilet-baseball4.htm)
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml)
The fact that there is a common misconception regarding the rotation  of water in a toilet bowl is irrelevant and, as usual, you are using it here as a straw man.

Quote
People come here claiming that gravity is proven and is caused by a curvature of space time, and when we point out the fact that scientists don't know whether gravity is a bending of space or a subatomic particle called the graviton, they change their tune.
Whether it is due to the bending of space time or a subatomic particle is irrelevant. The fact that gravity exists is not disputed. How it works is a constantly evolving theory in physics, i.e. Newtonian gravity, Einstein's Relativity, etc.
Quote
People come here claiming that Christopher Columbus proved that the world was round, and when we point out that he did no such thing, they change their tune.
Columbus only sailed as far as America. It was Magellan who circumnavigated the globe. Disproving claims that Columbus proved the Earth was round is trivial.
Here's where you claim that Magellan sailed in a circle on a flat surface. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

He'd have had a job circumnavigating the globe, for two reasons. One, the earth is not a globe; and two, he was dead for half the way.
1) Really? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globe (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globe)
2) The expedition that was led by Magellan circumnavigated the Earth, although he died on the way. Split hairs much?

Way to address the points that were brought up in the post.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 01:56:11 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs.  ;D  Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death.  That free dictionary site of yours will, upon being asked to define disc, will give you in one definition like "the sun's disc."  It agrees with James.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: jraffield1 on October 03, 2011, 02:28:30 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs.  ;D  Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death.  That free dictionary site of yours will, upon being asked to define disc, will give you in one definition like "the sun's disc."  It agrees with James.

The 2D projection of a spherical sun onto a plane will yield a disk. Glad to set the record straight :)
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 02:33:53 PM
Good.  You may begin at will.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 04:07:01 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs.  ;D  Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death. 

Are you saying that no one else, in the history of man, has claimed to circumnavigate the globe?  So what if Magellan died part way through the voyage.  The rest of his crew supposedly made it, as well as many more individuals.  Are you calling each and every one of them liers?  Or are you trying to claim that each and every one of them died part way through the journey?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 04:14:35 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs.  ;D  Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death. 

Are you saying that no one else, in the history of man, has claimed to circumnavigate the globe? 
...

No.  Where did you come up with that?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 04:22:56 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs.  ;D  Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death. 

Are you saying that no one else, in the history of man, has claimed to circumnavigate the globe? 
...

No.  Where did you come up with that?


Try to keep up, please.  The post I quoted claimed that the Magellan journey was not valid because the decission to continue was made after he was dead.  This, to me, means that the whole journey can not be used as proof of a circumnavigatable earth.

I was stating that, because many people have claimed to have circumnavigated the globe, are all of their journeys invalid for the same reason?  The post I quoted has no relevance to the discussion.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Tausami on October 03, 2011, 04:27:04 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs.  ;D  Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death. 

Are you saying that no one else, in the history of man, has claimed to circumnavigate the globe? 
...

No.  Where did you come up with that?


Try to keep up, please.  The post I quoted claimed that the Magellan journey was not valid because the decission to continue was made after he was dead.  This, to me, means that the whole journey can not be used as proof of a circumnavigatable earth.

I was stating that, because many people have claimed to have circumnavigated the globe, are all of their journeys invalid for the same reason?  The post I quoted has no relevance to the discussion.

Actually, he was just nitpicking to get you angry. I suppose it worked.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 04:37:53 PM

Try to keep up, please.  The post I quoted claimed that the Magellan journey was not valid because the decision to continue was made after he was dead.  This, to me, means that the whole journey can not be used as proof of a circumnavigatable earth.

I was stating that, because many people have claimed to have circumnavigated the globe, are all of their journeys invalid for the same reason?  The post I quoted has no relevance to the discussion.

Actually, he was just nitpicking to get you angry. I suppose it worked.

No, I disagree.  I am not angry at all.  I was asking if the same disproof can be used on all supposedly circumnavigation journeys, or if this one deserves its own disproof because of special circumstances.

Come to think of it, I suppose I was I was making light at the attempt to disprove the journey due to the fact that the leader died.  The quote appeared to me to say this.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 04:44:49 PM


No, I disagree.  I am not angry at all.  I was asking if the same disproof can be used on all supposedly circumnavigation journeys, or if this one deserves its own disproof because of special circumstances.

Come to think of it, I suppose I was I was making light at the attempt to disprove the journey due to the fact that the leader died.  The quote appeared to me to say this.

No. I don't think Magellan being dead had much to do with Drake's voyage, if that's what you're saying.  Why would it?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 04:50:56 PM


No, I disagree.  I am not angry at all.  I was asking if the same disproof can be used on all supposedly circumnavigation journeys, or if this one deserves its own disproof because of special circumstances.

Come to think of it, I suppose I was I was making light at the attempt to disprove the journey due to the fact that the leader died.  The quote appeared to me to say this.

No. I don't think Magellan being dead had much to do with Drake's voyage, if that's what you're saying.  Why would it?

So, then why did you even bring up this fact, unless you were trying to make the journey invalid?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 04:52:44 PM
I didn't bring it up.  I think the problem is that you arrived in this thread in medias res.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 04:55:59 PM
So then, what was the point that you were trying to make?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 05:01:09 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs. 
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 03, 2011, 05:04:08 PM
Being dead is somewhat worse than splitting hairs. 

Well then, I suppose I agree.  However, I do not see how this is relevant to the conversation.  I do not remember any of us arguing the opposite.

So, I would suppose that your statement was meant to refute some other statement that someone else made.  Can you tell me what that was?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Mrs. Peach on October 03, 2011, 05:28:18 PM
Nah.  All the bait is off your line and your worm box is empty. 
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: NTheGreat on October 04, 2011, 05:34:00 AM
The main problem I have with bendy light, or atmospheric distortion, or whatever people feel like calling it currently, is that there's nothing to support it. The only reason flat Earth supporters think there's something bending the light rays is because it's the only thing they've come up with to explain what's seen if you assume that the Earth is flat. There's nothing that suggests that the air is frequently denser at the point you're looking at in the distance than it is where you are observing from.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 04, 2011, 01:50:00 PM
The main problem I have with bendy light, or atmospheric distortion, or whatever people feel like calling it currently, is that there's nothing to support it. The only reason flat Earth supporters think there's something bending the light rays is because it's the only thing they've come up with to explain what's seen if you assume that the Earth is flat. There's nothing that suggests that the air is frequently denser at the point you're looking at in the distance than it is where you are observing from.

There is not only nothing to support it, there's observations that actively contradict it.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 06, 2011, 12:33:40 AM
Magellan's goal did not include circumnavigation of the earth.  The decision to continue west was made after his death. 
What is the relevance of Magellan's goal? This has no bearing on whether or not his expedition circumnavigated the globe.

That free dictionary site of yours will, upon being asked to define disc, will give you in one definition like "the sun's disc."  It agrees with James.
Firstly, its not mine.
Secondly, this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disc (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disc) is the definition of disc you were talking about.
1. a flat circular plate
2. something resembling or appearing to resemble this the sun's disc


I didn't realize that it was possible, but you have just done the dictionary equivalent of quote mining. Point 2 in the definition does not "agree" with any FE notion of a flat sun. It specifically says "something resembling or appearing to resemble this", where "this" refers to the flat circular plate definition given in point 1. "The sun's disc" is an example of something resembling a disc.

Another example of a FEer trying to get off-topic to avoid the issue.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 12:52:13 PM
the people who believe in the round earth never change their theories
I guess that's exactly why you guys have no working model of gravitation and are actively pursuing a new one.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 10, 2011, 01:01:25 PM
the people who believe in the round earth never change their theories
I guess that's exactly why you guys have no working model of gravitation and are actively pursuing a new one.

Untrue, but even if it was true, that's a far more scientific attitude than having a theory that does not fit observed data (UA) and refusing to change it.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 01:11:14 PM
Untrue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Recent_alternative_theories

In the words of Tim Minchin:
Does the idea that one afternoon
On Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you
Frighten you?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 10, 2011, 01:20:00 PM
Untrue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Recent_alternative_theories


The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and working to understand why IS a more scientific attitude than the FET one (duh, the earth accelerates at exactly the same rate everywhere, even though people say they have data that shows different force in different places, we're just gonna ignore that, dribble dribble). No proper scientist will claim that our best theories of gravity explain everything we see, whereas when confronted with such anomalies in their theories the FET crowd resort to either claiming the data is false or just ignoring it.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Ski on October 10, 2011, 07:08:16 PM
Untrue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Recent_alternative_theories


The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and ...

If it has flaws then it is clearly not a working model. It isn't working to resolve the discrepancies, is it?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 08:07:42 PM
The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and working to understand why IS a more scientific attitude than the FET one (duh, the earth accelerates at exactly the same rate everywhere, even though people say they have data that shows different force in different places, we're just gonna ignore that, dribble dribble). No proper scientist will claim that our best theories of gravity explain everything we see, whereas when confronted with such anomalies in their theories the FET crowd resort to either claiming the data is false or just ignoring it.
In fact, most of the FET crowd resorts to gravitational pull of the heavens, which is the cause of the (tiny and hardly significant, mind you) discrepancies in the measurements of g.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: momentia on October 10, 2011, 08:15:50 PM
The statement "there is no working model of gravitation" IS untrue.
Accepting that the best model we have still has flaws and working to understand why IS a more scientific attitude than the FET one (duh, the earth accelerates at exactly the same rate everywhere, even though people say they have data that shows different force in different places, we're just gonna ignore that, dribble dribble). No proper scientist will claim that our best theories of gravity explain everything we see, whereas when confronted with such anomalies in their theories the FET crowd resort to either claiming the data is false or just ignoring it.
In fact, most of the FET crowd resorts to gravitational pull of the heavens, which is the cause of the (tiny and hardly significant, mind you) discrepancies in the measurements of g.

Measured tidal forces are two orders of magnitude less (100x) than changes in g from region to region.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50380.msg1242255#msg1242255
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 08:22:33 PM
Ah, yes, a good, old, trusty semantics attack. Very well, then. Here's an errata:

The gravitational pull of the heavens is responsible for the discrepancies of most gravitation-related measurements commonly attributed to the Earth being a spinning ball.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: momentia on October 10, 2011, 10:21:33 PM
Ah, yes, a good, old, trusty semantics attack. Very well, then. Here's an errata:

The gravitational pull of the heavens is responsible for the discrepancies of most gravitation-related measurements commonly attributed to the Earth being a spinning ball.

Except that the evidence shows that tidal variations are 100 times smaller than than variations recorded.

Example:
http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/PJST10_1_656.pdf
Look at figure 2 and figure 5.
Figure 2 is tidal variation. It is .6 mgal between max and min.
Figure 5 is a contour map. (points on each line have the same measured g)
It is a "free air anomaly map", it is the raw measurements adjusted only for height above sea level. (g decrease as height increases in both models.)
It has values ranging from 10 mgal to 60 (or more) mgal, a difference of 50 mgal.

This means that variations due to the heavens (.4 mgal) are ~100x smaller than variations in g (50 mgal) in different places over a small area (the survey was about (30 km)2)

(No semantics.)
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Ski on October 10, 2011, 11:37:42 PM
It is a "free air anomaly map", it is the raw measurements adjusted only for height above sea level. (g decrease as height increases in both models.)

These numbers were achieved/"adjusted" for height(distance to the core) based on the fiction that the earth was a sphere.
Tidal forces must be added to the already present/measured effects of celestial gravitation for your argument to make any sense.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 11, 2011, 12:13:39 AM
Except that the evidence shows that tidal variations are 100 times smaller than than variations recorded.
RE "evidence" not matching up with RE "recordings" are none of my concern.

This means that variations due to the heavens (.4 mgal) are ~100x smaller than variations in g (50 mgal) in different places over a small area (the survey was about (30 km)2)
And what exactly are you trying to infer from this?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: momentia on October 11, 2011, 01:12:17 AM
It is a "free air anomaly map", it is the raw measurements adjusted only for height above sea level. (g decrease as height increases in both models.)

These numbers were achieved/"adjusted" for height(distance to the core) based on the fiction that the earth was a sphere.
Tidal forces must be added to the already present/measured effects of celestial gravitation for your argument to make any sense.

On RE, the adjustment for height is a linear function due to the large distance from the center of the earth. On FE, the adjustment for height is also linear function due to the large distance from the heavens. The same constant of proportionality can be used.

The already present effects of sun/moon gravitation should be on the same order of magnitude as the tidal variations, since the FE sun/moon change significantly in distance from the site over a 24 hour period. I have calculated this "already present" attraction before, based on a set of tidal data that Ski provided.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50380.msg1242462#msg1242462

This means something besides the sun and the moon would have to be causing these relatively large variations.

Except that the evidence shows that tidal variations are 100 times smaller than than variations recorded.
RE "evidence" not matching up with RE "recordings" are none of my concern.
Sorry, that was unintentionally confusing and apparently misleading. I should rewrite:
"Except that the maximum tidal variations recorded at a single spot are 100 times smaller than the maximum recorded difference between two points on the map."

Quote
This means that variations due to the heavens (.4 mgal) are ~100x smaller than variations in g (50 mgal) in different places over a small area (the survey was about (30 km)2)
And what exactly are you trying to infer from this?
Since FE base attraction of the sun and moon are on the same order of magnitude as tidal variations (see above), they cannot be responsible for variations 100 times their sizes over such a small area.


Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:48:42 AM
Momentia, they're either too dim to understand the concept, or they're pretending not to understand it (which is worse.) You need to make a simplistic metaphor that even people of low intellect will understand.
Ski and Pizza: imagine you are looking at a room illuminated in different places by several spotlights powered by 200w bulbs. Now imagine someone lights a candle. Is the scene lit up brighter? Yes, but by a virtually unnoticeable amount because the amount of light emitted by the candle is so much smaller than the amount of light the spotlights are giving out. You can move the candle anywhere you like in the room and observers will still be able to see bright and dark patches where the light of the bright spotlights is falling, whether the candle is placed in the shadows or the light areas. The position of the spotlight areas is not obscured by the candle.
Now imagine the spotlights represent variations in gravitational strength and the candle represents celestial tidal forces. Or ar you going to pretend that's too hard for you?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 11, 2011, 04:58:47 AM
Ski and Pizza: imagine you are looking at a room illuminated in different places by several spotlights powered by 200w bulbs. Now imagine someone lights a candle. Is the scene lit up brighter? Yes, but by a virtually unnoticeable amount because the amount of light emitted by the candle is so much smaller than the amount of light the spotlights are giving out. You can move the candle anywhere you like in the room and observers will still be able to see bright and dark patches where the light of the bright spotlights is falling, whether the candle is placed in the shadows or the light areas. The position of the spotlight areas is not obscured by the candle.
Now imagine the spotlights represent variations in gravitational strength and the candle represents celestial tidal forces.
I agree. They are entirely insignificant, unimportant, and the variations in measurements could be caused by virtually anything. However, RE'ers keep bringing this point up, whilst ignoring the many discrepancies their gravitational model has, so we can either tell them to gtfo or keep answering their questions.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 11, 2011, 03:27:55 PM
the variations in measurements could be caused by virtually anything.

So why are some FEers claiming that the heavens are causing it if it could be caused by "virtually anything?"
Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 11, 2011, 03:30:47 PM
If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.
If you accept atmospheric refraction, how can you accept that Rowbotham's experiments were at all conclusive?  If you don't accept said experiments, what is your reason for supporting flat earth theory in the first place?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:02:50 PM
Ski and Pizza: imagine you are looking at a room illuminated in different places by several spotlights powered by 200w bulbs. Now imagine someone lights a candle. Is the scene lit up brighter? Yes, but by a virtually unnoticeable amount because the amount of light emitted by the candle is so much smaller than the amount of light the spotlights are giving out. You can move the candle anywhere you like in the room and observers will still be able to see bright and dark patches where the light of the bright spotlights is falling, whether the candle is placed in the shadows or the light areas. The position of the spotlight areas is not obscured by the candle.
Now imagine the spotlights represent variations in gravitational strength and the candle represents celestial tidal forces.
I agree. They are entirely insignificant, unimportant, and the variations in measurements could be caused by virtually anything. However, RE'ers keep bringing this point up, whilst ignoring the many discrepancies their gravitational model has, so we can either tell them to gtfo or keep answering their questions.

*facepalm* you don't even understand the metaphor.
The insignificant unimportant variations (candle light) are the celestial tidal forces. The significant ones that FET needs to take into account and which cannot be attributed to tidal forces are the local variations at places fixed on the earth. These are the bright spotlights. FET needs to account for those but cannot. It cannot claim it's due to celestial tidal forces because those have been measured and found too weak by two orders of magnitude.
Explain that using FET, please.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 11, 2011, 04:06:26 PM
Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?

This is never addressed. This thread questioned it and you can see how antsy the FE'ers got:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49587.msg1217945#msg1217945
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 12, 2011, 04:55:35 AM
*facepalm* you don't even understand the metaphor.
I do. I just interpret it differently than you do. You analogy (not to be confused with a metaphor) is very precise, and shows incredibly well how unnoticeable the differences are.

Explain that using FET, please.
Measurement imprecision of insignificant extent.

So why are some FEers claiming that the heavens are causing it if it could be caused by "virtually anything?"
I brought up the pull of the heavens because I thought we're discussing variations of local gravity, not magical celestial tidal forces of no measurable impact on the world, or evidence behind them. I am so terribly sorry that I was mistaken.

Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?
Invalid analogy is invalid.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 07:52:20 AM
Why do FEers assume the earth is a disc when it could virtually be any other shape?
Invalid analogy is invalid.

It's not an analogy, it's a seperate question. Why DO you all assume it's a disc, when none of you has seen the edge?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 07:57:47 AM
*facepalm* you don't even understand the metaphor.
I do. I just interpret it differently than you do. You analogy (not to be confused with a metaphor) is very precise, and shows incredibly well how unnoticeable the differences are.

Explain that using FET, please.
Measurement imprecision of insignificant extent.


ITT: Pizza Planet doesn't understand the difference in strength between measured celestial tidal forces and measured earth gravity variation, despite very simplistic analogies and detailed explanations both having been posted. He seems to think they are of the same order of magnitude, despite it having been explicitly stated they aren't. He seems to think the variations measured are smaller than the precision/error tolerance of the instruments used to measure them. Pizza Planet is either thick as pigshit or is merely pretending to not understand because FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 12, 2011, 08:59:38 AM
ITT: Pizza Planet doesn't understand the difference in strength between measured celestial tidal forces and measured earth gravity variation, despite very simplistic analogies and detailed explanations both having been posted. He seems to think they are of the same order of magnitude, despite it having been explicitly stated they aren't. He seems to think the variations measured are smaller than the precision/error tolerance of the instruments used to measure them. Pizza Planet is either thick as pigshit or is merely pretending to not understand because FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.
A very interesting argument. A common logical fallacy, known as argumentum ad hominem, or simply ad hominem. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think they're of the same order of magnitude from.

I said many times that celestial tidal forces' influence is insignificant. I even bolded the word on occasion.

Perhaps you don't know what "insignificant" means?
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (a personal favourite of mine) says "insignificant" means as much as "not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small". Now, let's have another look at this definition, this time highlighting a key phrase.
"not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small"

In other words, I have said several times that these forces are of incredibly small impact, and yet you say I've claimed they're of the same order of magnitude - could you substantiate your claim by pointing our where I said that?

FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.
Celestial tidal forces are a RET concept. Of course they're not an FET explanation. I'm slightly unsure why you think that's relevant.

On another note, it would be appreciated if you kept your side of the discussion civil. If I'm too "thick as pigshit" for you, then perhaps you should consider not talking to me. In the meantime, you should probably work on your reading/typing skills. You see, the spelling of my nickname doesn't involve a space. It's a very simple concept, and yet you don't seem to understand it.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 11:35:53 AM
ITT: Pizza Planet doesn't understand the difference in strength between measured celestial tidal forces and measured earth gravity variation, despite very simplistic analogies and detailed explanations both having been posted. He seems to think they are of the same order of magnitude, despite it having been explicitly stated they aren't. He seems to think the variations measured are smaller than the precision/error tolerance of the instruments used to measure them. Pizza Planet is either thick as pigshit or is merely pretending to not understand because FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.
A very interesting argument. A common logical fallacy, known as argumentum ad hominem, or simply ad hominem. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think they're of the same order of magnitude from.

I said many times that celestial tidal forces' influence is insignificant. I even bolded the word on occasion.

Perhaps you don't know what "insignificant" means?
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (a personal favourite of mine) says "insignificant" means as much as "not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small". Now, let's have another look at this definition, this time highlighting a key phrase.
"not important or thought to be valuable, especially because of being small"

In other words, I have said several times that these forces are of incredibly small impact, and yet you say I've claimed they're of the same order of magnitude - could you substantiate your claim by pointing our where I said that?

FET has no explanation for the variance in gravity at different places on earth, since it has been demonstrated that celestial tidal forces are not the cause.
Celestial tidal forces are a RET concept. Of course they're not an FET explanation. I'm slightly unsure why you think that's relevant.

On another note, it would be appreciated if you kept your side of the discussion civil. If I'm too "thick as pigshit" for you, then perhaps you should consider not talking to me. In the meantime, you should probably work on your reading/typing skills. You see, the spelling of my nickname doesn't involve a space. It's a very simple concept, and yet you don't seem to understand it.

Sorry, I think I may be confusing you with Ski and Thork, because you all type the same sort of guff in the same sort of irritated snarky style. I had thought you were the one who claimed that celestial attraction was the explanation for variations in measured gravity strength, but perhaps it was one of the other two. Since this is the ONLY explanation for variations in the value of g that has been put forward by the FE crowd, if you disagree with that theory then you are admitting that FET is unable to explain these discrepancies at all, and that UA is unworkable.
If I labelled you as a proponent of the celestial attraction theory in error then I would apologise for the comment about your intelligence, except that you are then in the camp of denying variations in g.

Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 12, 2011, 03:29:20 PM
I don't deny them, and I agree that I don't know their exact source. Much of it is caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens, but certainly not all of it.

However, the unknown doesn't imply the incorrect. The RE gravitation model is known to be incorrect. There are notable discrepancies between the model in reality. However, it still stands as the best fit RE'ers could come with. Similarly with FE and UA. This doesn't mean UA is unworkable. Similarly, the discrepancies in the standard model of gravitation do not render it false. It just means there are other factors that need to be taken into account, in both models.

Also, please don't compare me to Ski. If you think we're similar, lie to me. There's a lot of beef going on between the two of us.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 12, 2011, 03:48:07 PM
I don't deny them, and I agree that I don't know their exact source. Much of it is caused by the gravitational pull of the heavens , but certainly not all of it.

However, the unknown doesn't imply the incorrect. The RE gravitation model is known to be incorrect. There are notable discrepancies between the model in reality. However, it still stands as the best fit RE'ers could come with. Similarly with FE and UA. This doesn't mean UA is unworkable. Similarly, the discrepancies in the standard model of gravitation do not render it false. It just means there are other factors that need to be taken into account, in both models.


Ah, so you are indeed unable to understand the measurable pull of the heavens cannot account for it. I was correct not to withdraw my description of your brain power.

You also either fail to understand (or are deliberately trolling, it's not possible to tell which, so you're either dense or a big troll) that some discrepancies in a model are more major than others. The things that don't quite fit with the RE model of gravity are extreme circumstances for which there is a distinct lack of data that would be very useful for helping us solve these problems. For example, does dark matter exist or not? We don't currently have the data to answer that and so we cannot answer some questions about gravity. Whereas something as straight forward as different parts of an object having to move at different speeds yet remaining the same distance apart (as UA requires) is so ludicrously impossible and out of step with any observed reality that it's enough to totally kick the theory to pieces.
Trying to make out that UA and gravity are both incomplete theories and therefore equally valid is just semantics. I'm afraid the equivalence principle doesn't apply to this.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 12, 2011, 04:04:45 PM
Ah, so you are indeed unable to understand the measurable pull of the heavens cannot account for it. I was correct not to withdraw my description of your brain power.
I think you're mistaken about what "the pull of the heavens" is in FET. You claim it's celestial tidal forces, which it is not.

You also either fail to understand that some discrepancies in a model are more major than others.
I do not. Enormous bodies such as stars moving in unpredictable patterns, planetary orbits expanding anomalously, or spacecraft experiencing significantly higher accelerations than expected during slingshots seem more major to me than tiny differences in measured celestial tidal forces, a hundredth of g variations' magnitude.

Also, just to remind you, you've claimed that it's untrue that RET gravity has flaws and that there exist different models within RET. I've posted Wiki links to prove you wrong, and now you're attacking UA. Am I to understand that you have no defence for RET gravitation and that you're attempting to misdirect the argument, or are you going to present your case soon?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 12, 2011, 06:39:29 PM
Are you suggesting that there is some constant unmoving irregular entity in the heavens that exerts constant unmoving influence on the percieved acceleration of the earth?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 10:22:23 AM
Also, just to remind you, you've claimed that it's untrue that RET gravity has flaws
I didn't say it has no flaws: I said gravity has a working model which has flaws within it but which is generally so accurate that we only encounter flaws in the areas where it is difficult for us to gather accessory data to understand why we are seeing these discrepancies. UA, however, has flaws that can be tested very easily and where data is extremely easy to come by. To go into detail: we can't go out and hover in the stars measuring the speed of them with a radar gun, we have to infer their speed by convoluted processes, and we cannot pull them down and do an experiment on them in controlled conditions. We see a star moving and we have to make educated guesses about how fast it should be going, but we can't directly test it. Whereas you can march all over the earth with an accelerometer measuring g and seeing with your own eyes that it varies by an amount far greater than the (measurable) gravitational pull of celestial objects, all of which move relative to the surface of the earth, while the gravity variations do not.
To quote from your beloved Wikipedia: There is a lack of experimental evidence relating to quantum gravity, and classical physics adequately describes the observed effects of gravity over a range of 50 orders of magnitude of mass, i.e. for masses of objects from about 10−23 to 1030 kg.
Quote
...and that there exist different models within RET.
Again, I never said there weren't different models. However, the parts of every model of gravity in RET all have one thing in common, which is that they fit the observed and measured data that we can test with a degree of certainty. I'm expecting you to commit the common FE troll move of confusing theories of how gravity works with theories of what gravity does - these two completely different concepts seem to be interchangeable in the land of flat trolls.
Quote
I've posted Wiki links to prove you wrong, and now you're attacking UA. Am I to understand that you have no defence for RET gravitation and that you're attempting to misdirect the argument, or are you going to present your case soon?
The Wiki links didn't prove me wrong, because I wasn't trying to say the RE theories of gravity are perfect. And yes I'm attacking UA because unlike every single effect of gravity ever observed at the scale 10−23 to 1030 kg, UA does not fit observed data. I don't need to misdirect the argument, because you appear not to understand what it is yourself.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 13, 2011, 03:01:42 PM
I said gravity has a working model which has flaws
Ah, so you've committed a falsism. It would have been better for you not to admit to this, but well.

Again, I never said there weren't different models.
Intriguing. So you agree with me on both claims that the current model of gravitation has flaws and alternatives within RET?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 13, 2011, 04:54:57 PM
I said gravity has a working model which has flaws
Ah, so you've committed a falsism. It would have been better for you not to admit to this, but well.

Again, I never said there weren't different models.
Intriguing. So you agree with me on both claims that the current model of gravitation has flaws and alternatives within RET?

Semantic troll is pedantic. Pedantic troll is semantic.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 13, 2011, 05:34:43 PM
Semantic troll is pedantic. Pedantic troll is semantic.
Funny. You will find it was you who started with semantics. I'm glad to see that you're losing, though, especially to someone of intelligence as low as my own.
So, what's the answer to my question?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 15, 2011, 05:14:11 AM
Semantic troll is pedantic. Pedantic troll is semantic.
Funny. You will find it was you who started with semantics. I'm glad to see that you're losing, though, especially to someone of intelligence as low as my own.
So, what's the answer to my question?

I can't even remember what the fupping question was now.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 04:03:10 PM
Interesting. The question was asked on this page, less than 50 hours ago.
That's some incredibly poor memory you're demonstrating here, and it goes along with an extreme lack of will to scroll up and check.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 15, 2011, 04:18:49 PM
So, where's the math behind bendy light?

Is is only the stellar light which bends?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 06:36:24 PM
So, where's the math behind bendy light?
The entire derivation is not complete, but here's a general idea: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

Is is only the stellar light which bends?
No. All light bends.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: momentia on October 15, 2011, 06:44:39 PM
So, where's the math behind bendy light?
The entire derivation is not complete, but here's a general idea: http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

Is is only the stellar light which bends?
No. All light bends.

Do you know who has the entire derivation? Because the wiki says that this is a shortened version of the equation. Also, in any case, this equation would still cause the sun to cast a circle of light onto the earth.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 15, 2011, 06:59:34 PM
I think that would be Parsifal.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 15, 2011, 07:01:59 PM
Interesting. The question was asked on this page, less than 50 hours ago.
That's some incredibly poor memory you're demonstrating here, and it goes along with an extreme lack of will to scroll up and check.

Why would I bother to scroll up and check? Bendy light was disproved last year some time by the look of it, and you're still using it in your arguments. If we were having some sort of worthwhile debate then I'd scroll back and check, this is just you trolling and me getting rapidly more disinterested in bothering to get the can of troll-be-gone out. All you have left to offer in this thread is put-downs, re-use of disproved theories and semantics. Other people provide much more enjoyable troll baiting opportunities than you're managing here. Come up with something new and try thinking of a new theory or something. Your recycling of disproved claptrap is dull and predictable.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 08:27:52 PM
EA does not account for the horizontal displacement of the sun and moon which would be necessary with the UN-style flat earth.  Which makes me wonder which geometric FE model it applies to.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 16, 2011, 12:09:54 AM
Why would I bother to scroll up and check? Bendy light[...]
I'm sure your incorrect claims regarding gravitation have a lot to do with Electromagnetic Acceleration. Interesting attempt at misdirection, though.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 02:55:20 AM
Why would I bother to scroll up and check? Bendy light[...]
I'm sure your incorrect claims regarding gravitation have a lot to do with Electromagnetic Acceleration.

Sorry, does this post mean something?  ???
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 16, 2011, 03:00:21 AM
Pizza Planet loves dithering and attacking others...
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 16, 2011, 09:19:56 PM
Sorry, does this post mean something?  ???
Yes.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 18, 2011, 07:02:45 AM
Could someone explain:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

And tell me if this equation explains if it can explain the fact that wherever you are the Sun and the Moon always look the same.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: trig on October 18, 2011, 07:24:32 AM
the people who believe in the round earth never change their theories
I guess that's exactly why you guys have no working model of gravitation and are actively pursuing a new one.
This is a most telling show of total ignorance about science. A model is what you need to make predictions, which, if verified through experiments and observations, is the basis for a theory. And we are full of verified predictions with both Newton's model and Einstein's model of gravitation.

If you want to decry all of modern science you can at least learn what the scientific method is. Whether you like gravitons and space-time or not, they are not there for your amusement, they are there to make predictions and therefore qualify perfectly as working models.

What you really want to see is not called a working model, it is called a layman's explanation, the kind that makes you say "wow, now I understand!".
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 18, 2011, 08:43:49 AM
And we are full of verified predictions with both Newton's model and Einstein's model of gravitation.
You're also full of verified counter-examples, as linked before. By what you just said, this disproves the two models as scientific facts, theories and models. I guess you don't have a model, after all.

tell me if this equation explains if it can explain the fact that wherever you are the Sun and the Moon always look the same.
The only model (that I know of) that considers the Sun and Moon to be discs is the McIntyre model. That model does not accept EAT.
In other words, no.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 18, 2011, 08:52:09 AM
Could someone explain:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/wiki/index.php/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

And tell me if this equation explains if it can explain the fact that wherever you are the Sun and the Moon always look the same.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 18, 2011, 06:07:39 PM
So, where's the math behind bendy light?

Is is only the stellar light which bends?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: kaimason1 on October 18, 2011, 09:51:27 PM
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

That's why we prefer the explanation of atmospheric distortion.

So I ask again why isn't laser light affected?

It is.

Why isn't it affected enough to match what would be predicted from an extreme distortion such as would be required for bendy light?
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 18, 2011, 09:53:39 PM
Why isn't it affected enough to match what would be predicted from an extreme distortion such as would be required for bendy light?
This question does not apply. It's like saying "Why is a chair not a chair?"
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: kaimason1 on October 18, 2011, 10:02:55 PM
Why isn't it affected enough to match what would be predicted from an extreme distortion such as would be required for bendy light?
This question does not apply. It's like saying "Why is a chair not a chair?"
How does it not apply? LASER LIGHT IS NOT BENDED ENOUGH BY GRAVITATIONAL DISTORTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HORIZON. How do you account for this? I am definitely not saying "Why does bendy light work if light isn't bendy?", because light CAN be distorted or bent by gravitational pull. However, there is not enough distortion to create such an effect as FE's "bendy light" theory.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 18, 2011, 11:55:37 PM
LASER LIGHT IS NOT BENDED ENOUGH [...] TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HORIZON.
LASER LIGHT IS BENDED ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HORIZON.

BY GRAVITATIONAL DISTORTION
Luckily, no one here claims that it's caused by gravitational distortion.

I am definitely not saying "Why does bendy light work if light isn't bendy?"
Essentially, you are.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: NTheGreat on October 19, 2011, 05:52:29 AM
LASER LIGHT IS BENDED ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HORIZON.

Laser light is bent to a significant degree? I always through that wouldn't work, as the light in a laser is bounced between a mirror and a half-silvered mirror hundreds of times. If there was any significant force acting on the light, the beam would be smeared in one direction when it comes out of the laser.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 22, 2011, 05:49:29 AM
Laser light is bent to a significant degree?
No, it's not.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 22, 2011, 07:34:39 AM
Laser light is bent to a significant degree?
No, it's not.

If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Lord Xenu on October 22, 2011, 07:44:21 AM
Laser light is bent to a significant degree?
No, it's not.

If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
The sun is a laser?  ???
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 22, 2011, 07:45:41 AM
Laser light is bent to a significant degree?
No, it's not.

If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
The sun is a laser?  ???
Bendy light in general I mean.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: kaimason1 on October 22, 2011, 09:55:21 PM
I'm gonna call circular reasoning on that. Round Earth explains the same phenomenon much more simply, and so by Occam's Razor would be correct in this scenario; with other evidence, that could be ruled out, but you've got none, and we've got evidence against yours.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 23, 2011, 09:17:25 AM
If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
But that's perspective, not EAT ???
Also, you can simply achieve such effects by just tilting the laser a tiny bit on RE. Unless you can align your laser well enough for the beam to travel 3000 miles with no displacement and prove that the laser was held perfectly horizontally, you don't have much of a case.

we've got evidence against yours.
That's what you say, but no one ever presents this mystical evidence. :'(
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 23, 2011, 10:36:55 AM
If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
But that's perspective, not EAT ???
Perspective would cause the sun and moon to maintain an angular distance from the ground proportional to their angular size.  This doesn't happen.
Quote
Also, you can simply achieve such effects by just tilting the laser a tiny bit on RE. Unless you can align your laser well enough for the beam to travel 3000 miles with no displacement and prove that the laser was held perfectly horizontally, you don't have much of a case.
  I can't say I'm following you very well here.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Zogg on October 23, 2011, 11:57:48 AM
If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
But that's perspective, not EAT ???

Perspective would make the sun appear 26.5 above the horizon at sunset.
(Not sure what "sunset" is called in FET though, as it can't really "set" 26 above the horizon... "Sunvanish" ?)
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 23, 2011, 02:22:50 PM
If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
But that's perspective, not EAT ???

Perspective would make the sun appear 26.5 above the horizon at sunset.
(Not sure what "sunset" is called in FET though, as it can't really "set" 26 above the horizon... "Sunvanish" ?)

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: jraffield1 on October 23, 2011, 02:28:11 PM
If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
But that's perspective, not EAT ???

Perspective would make the sun appear 26.5 above the horizon at sunset.
(Not sure what "sunset" is called in FET though, as it can't really "set" 26 above the horizon... "Sunvanish" ?)

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Rowbotham's perspective laws conflict with his own results. I think its safe to say that that invalidates any of his other insane ideas.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 23, 2011, 03:00:01 PM
Rowbotham's perspective laws conflict with his own results.

No, they don't.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: General Disarray on October 23, 2011, 03:19:41 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

It is one thing to say this, it is quite another to demonstrate that this statement is correct.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: momentia on October 23, 2011, 03:58:49 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Please quantify perspective by relating the below variables:
H - height of observer
D - distance to observed object
h - height of object that is hidden
m - magnification of lens/telescope used
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 23, 2011, 03:59:34 PM
The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

That's a new one!

You better have a good explaination on this one.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Nolhekh on October 23, 2011, 05:46:56 PM
If it can make the sun, which would be at least 3000 miles above the ground appear to be on the ground at sunset or sunrise, then I'd say that's significant.
But that's perspective, not EAT ???

Perspective would make the sun appear 26.5 above the horizon at sunset.
(Not sure what "sunset" is called in FET though, as it can't really "set" 26 above the horizon... "Sunvanish" ?)

Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.
Even Rowbotham specifies an minimum angular size limit for ocular resolution.  26 degrees is well within Rowbotham's specified limit of visible angular size/distance.  Just as a reference, 26 degrees is the angular size of a basketball from 1 metre away.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: markjo on October 23, 2011, 08:03:30 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham describes the correct laws of perspective. The perspective taught in art school is incorrect.

Of course art school perspective is wrong.  It assumes that the earth is an infinte plane.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: connornee on October 23, 2011, 09:00:33 PM
i think lasers have a special kind of light in them that the other ones dont have
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: logicalskeptic on October 24, 2011, 02:05:32 PM
Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 25, 2011, 04:23:54 AM
Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.

That's just a technicality.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: flat_earth_really? on October 25, 2011, 04:42:19 AM
Hey question if you are all zetetics then why can't say bendy light works because you yourself have never observed or tested it? Just saying you are internally inconsistent here.

That's just a technicality.
I'm inclined to agree with logicalskeptic here. Take gravity as an example of something that they disregard. In an effort to make gravity sound ridiculous they call it magical or a figment of our imagination, then they go and imagine universal acceleration in its place. How can you disregard one theory, claiming it has no basis in reality, then replace it with a theory that is at least as implausible.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: trig on October 25, 2011, 05:44:40 AM
And we are full of verified predictions with both Newton's model and Einstein's model of gravitation.
You're also full of verified counter-examples, as linked before. By what you just said, this disproves the two models as scientific facts, theories and models. I guess you don't have a model, after all.

This answer does not even start to explain how you talk about models and science and don't even know what a model is. If you had ever understood something, you would have not mentioned counter-examples, you would have shown counter-examples of models with the corresponding predictions.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 25, 2011, 12:37:50 PM
This answer does not even start to explain how you talk about models and science and don't even know what a model is. If you had ever understood something, you would have not mentioned counter-examples, you would have shown counter-examples of models with the corresponding predictions.
So, according to you, if I point out that predictions made by a model are completely unrelated to reality, that doesn't affect the model's validity.
A fairly interesting claim, but I'm not going to waste time discussing it.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: trig on December 24, 2011, 09:32:08 AM
This answer does not even start to explain how you talk about models and science and don't even know what a model is. If you had ever understood something, you would have not mentioned counter-examples, you would have shown counter-examples of models with the corresponding predictions.
So, according to you, if I point out that predictions made by a model are completely unrelated to reality, that doesn't affect the model's validity.
A fairly interesting claim, but I'm not going to waste time discussing it.
You don't really know what a model is, you don't know what the Scientific Method is so you don't really know what to do with a model, and still you consider yourself an authority  in whether a model is related to reality?

Get real yourself.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 24, 2011, 09:35:37 AM
I had a model once. She never ate. It was depressing.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: Silverdane on December 26, 2011, 08:56:16 AM
You don't really know what a model is, you don't know what the Scientific Method is so you don't really know what to do with a model, and still you consider yourself an authority  in whether a model is related to reality?

Get real yourself.

Isn't a model, where you fly from America east towards Europe, and end up in Africa instead?

Flying directly east into Europe should not be possible. All you Americans will land in Africa, if you fly east directly over the Atlantic.

That's why you have to "curve your path" north east, through Canada, Iceland, Britain, then fly "south east" to Europe. Just like in a FET model where you would fly directly straight, and it would still have your compass point north east then south east.

The FET model is PERFECTLY demonstrated by this. Unless you believe all the planes and air companies in America are owned by me, and force to lie in my name, so they don't lose their jobs?

Or do you believe airplanes are "in on" the conspiracy that is FET? Cos, they aren't. They're normal folk, working for privately owned companies. The End.

I thank you.
Title: Re: The problems with bendy light
Post by: trig on December 26, 2011, 04:24:30 PM
You don't really know what a model is, you don't know what the Scientific Method is so you don't really know what to do with a model, and still you consider yourself an authority  in whether a model is related to reality?

Get real yourself.

Isn't a model, where you fly from America east towards Europe, and end up in Africa instead?

Flying directly east into Europe should not be possible. All you Americans will land in Africa, if you fly east directly over the Atlantic.

That's why you have to "curve your path" north east, through Canada, Iceland, Britain, then fly "south east" to Europe. Just like in a FET model where you would fly directly straight, and it would still have your compass point north east then south east.

The FET model is PERFECTLY demonstrated by this. Unless you believe all the planes and air companies in America are owned by me, and force to lie in my name, so they don't lose their jobs?

Or do you believe airplanes are "in on" the conspiracy that is FET? Cos, they aren't. They're normal folk, working for privately owned companies. The End.

I thank you.
I think you are not talking about a scientific model, in the sense that is mentioned in the Scientific Method, either.

A model in the terms of the Scientific Method is a mathematical model that gives us predictions, which can in turn be verified to check the validity of the model. In this case, if you calculate the position and orientation of the Earth, and take into account its shape, and consider the stars as placed so far that can always be considered as stationary and in the same direction from Earth, you can calculate the place where an observer on Earth will see the stars (for a given location on Earth and a date and time). Those calculations are your model, the place where the stars should be are the predictions and you can verify the predictions yourself, going out and looking at the sky and comparing it with a star chart, or with the information in any of several sky charting programs.

But please learn some grammar. It is almost impossible to know if you are supporting or criticizing the FE "theories", if you know what a model is, or if you know minimal navigation skills or not.