The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: John Davis on September 02, 2014, 02:45:41 PM

Title: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: John Davis on September 02, 2014, 02:45:41 PM
I'm mentioning Bendy Light in my work and wish to compile a list of those who should be credited.

Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 02, 2014, 02:46:40 PM
Parsifal is a bendy light specialist. 
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: sokarul on September 02, 2014, 03:04:04 PM
You can thank me later.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11004.0#.VAY-sWMiQuQ (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11004.0#.VAY-sWMiQuQ)
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: FlatOrange on September 02, 2014, 07:46:31 PM
Bendy light is full of errors.

A person watching the sunset from the beach cannot see the sun because the light is hitting the earth before it gets to him. But yet, a person high on a mountain farther back than he can still see the sun because... the sunlight is now bending up?

Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: mathsman on September 03, 2014, 12:14:47 AM
Parsifal is a bendy light specialist.

Parsifal can't even calculate the Bishop constant.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 03, 2014, 01:28:41 AM
I have calculated the Bishop constant....you can see my proof in the margins...
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: mathsman on September 03, 2014, 01:30:39 AM
I thought the margin was too narrow.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: ausGeoff on September 03, 2014, 02:05:37 AM
I'm mentioning Bendy Light in my work and wish to compile a list of those who should be credited.

I'm assuming your non-scientific definition of "bendy light" is what real scientists mean by "atmospheric refraction", and which causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality.  If that's the case, then there's no need to mention it at all in your work, as René Descartes first published the laws of refraction in 1637.

You're 400 years too late.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: mathsman on September 03, 2014, 02:09:54 AM
René Descartes first published the laws of refraction in 1637.

'René Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink therefore I am.'
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: John Davis on September 03, 2014, 04:15:55 PM
I'm mentioning Bendy Light in my work and wish to compile a list of those who should be credited.

I'm assuming your non-scientific definition of "bendy light" is what real scientists mean by "atmospheric refraction", and which causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality.  If that's the case, then there's no need to mention it at all in your work, as René Descartes first published the laws of refraction in 1637.

You're 400 years too late.
You would be incorrect.

Bendy Light is a term that was given to a theory regarding light in a similar manner as to the naming of the "Big Bang" - that is to say in jest. The name stuck. The theory involves the bending of light near the surface of the earth.

Now that I'm thinking about it, TheEngineer (maybe?) may have proposed a very similar idea (with a mechanism) long ago. I should look into that too.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: sokarul on September 03, 2014, 05:42:07 PM
I'm mentioning Bendy Light in my work and wish to compile a list of those who should be credited.

I'm assuming your non-scientific definition of "bendy light" is what real scientists mean by "atmospheric refraction", and which causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality.  If that's the case, then there's no need to mention it at all in your work, as René Descartes first published the laws of refraction in 1637.

You're 400 years too late.
You would be incorrect.

Bendy Light is a term that was given to a theory regarding light in a similar manner as to the naming of the "Big Bang" - that is to say in jest. The name stuck. The theory involves the bending of light near the surface of the earth.

Now that I'm thinking about it, TheEngineer (maybe?) may have proposed a very similar idea (with a mechanism) long ago. I should look into that too.
I already linked to where bendy light was invented. If you want to ignore it, so be it. Sorry it wasn't made up by a popular member.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: ausGeoff on September 04, 2014, 03:49:26 AM
I'm mentioning Bendy Light in my work and wish to compile a list of those who should be credited.

I'm assuming your non-scientific definition of "bendy light" is what real scientists mean by "atmospheric refraction", and which causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality.  If that's the case, then there's no need to mention it at all in your work, as René Descartes first published the laws of refraction in 1637.

You're 400 years too late.
You would be incorrect.

Bendy Light is a term that was given to a theory regarding light in a similar manner as to the naming of the "Big Bang" - that is to say in jest. The name stuck. The theory involves the bending of light near the surface of the earth.

Now that I'm thinking about it, TheEngineer (maybe?) may have proposed a very similar idea (with a mechanism) long ago. I should look into that too.

I thank you for your clarification of the flat earth terminology "bendy light".  I questioned it for no other reason that this non-scientific term is used frequently by numerous flat earthers to explain the sometimes apparently anomalous optical effects we observe occuring above the earth's surface.

I'd suggest the following names for inclusion in your list of people to be credited with developing the theories of refraction:

•  Willebrord Snell
•  Thomas Harriot
•  René Descartes
•  François Arago
•  Christiaan Huygens
•  Ibn al-Haytham
•  Roshdi Rashed

—You're welcome.



Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 04, 2014, 10:05:41 PM
I think light is like a liquid, but in another dimension so we only see part of it.  Sence it can travel in more than the 3 dimensions we have it can bend and do all sorts of stuff we dont expect. Pretty simble really
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Shmeggley on September 04, 2014, 11:46:55 PM
J Davis don't forget to credit octojay for bendy light theory in your book.

I think light is like a liquid, but in another dimension so we only see part of it.  Sence it can travel in more than the 3 dimensions we have it can bend and do all sorts of stuff we dont expect. Pretty simble really
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 05, 2014, 01:50:44 AM
I think light is like a liquid, but in another dimension so we only see part of it.  Sence it can travel in more than the 3 dimensions we have it can bend and do all sorts of stuff we dont expect. Pretty simble really
Simble is as simble does.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Arith on September 05, 2014, 03:41:05 AM
Quote
J Davis don't forget to credit octojay for bendy light theory in your book.

Quote from: octojay on September 04, 2014, 10:05:41 PM

    I think light is like a liquid, but in another dimension so we only see part of it.  Sence it can travel in more than the 3 dimensions we have it can bend and do all sorts of stuff we dont expect. Pretty simble really

Makes more sense than most of the proof I've read here. Simble is often pest.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: ausGeoff on September 05, 2014, 04:25:42 AM
I think light is like a liquid, but in another dimension so we only see part of it.  Sence it can travel in more than the 3 dimensions we have it can bend and do all sorts of stuff we dont expect. Pretty simble really

If you "think" photonic energy is "like a liquid" then you're thinking is erroneous.  Theoretically, a photon is a quantum (sub-atomic) of electromagnetic radiation, regarded as a particle with zero rest mass and charge, unit spin, and energy equal to the product of the frequency of the radiation and the Planck constant (h in quantum theory).
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 05, 2014, 10:11:14 AM
"Theoretically" well MY "theoretically" is that it is like a liquid.  The stuff we see is just what is here in our dimension we don't know what it all is
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Rama Set on September 05, 2014, 10:36:44 AM
"Theoretically" well MY "theoretically" is that it is like a liquid.  The stuff we see is just what is here in our dimension we don't know what it all is

In this context you are mistaking theoretically with hypothetically.  When AusGeoff refers to the theoretical properties of a photon, he is referring to the knowledge that has been collected by experimentation and explained in mathematical formalism.  Your idea that it is a liquid has no substance behind it other than your own musings, or so it would appear.  I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 05, 2014, 10:56:15 AM
Proof to me that its quantum
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Shmeggley on September 05, 2014, 11:23:22 AM
"Theoretically" well MY "theoretically" is that it is like a liquid.  The stuff we see is just what is here in our dimension we don't know what it all is

In what way is it "like a liquid"? Liquid is a phase of matter where atoms/molecules move freely but have a low enough energy that they're practically touching. Doesn't sound anything like light in my experience.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Shmeggley on September 05, 2014, 11:28:31 AM
Proof to me that its quantum

It's been shown by experiment that light comes in little, discrete packets. Basically the experiments shine a light source on a sensitive detector, which creates an electrical signal. Turn down the light source very low, and the signal goes from being continuous to occurring in bursts. You can look up the details yourself. But light does occur in these little packets, which is all quantum really means.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 05, 2014, 02:18:57 PM
Have you done the experiments?  I haven't seen "little packets" of "quantum light"

and its like a liquid because it BATHES things in it also because it flows
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Shmeggley on September 05, 2014, 03:23:21 PM
Have you done the experiments?  I haven't seen "little packets" of "quantum light"

and its like a liquid because it BATHES things in it also because it flows

I haven't done the experiments personally myself, but they've been reproduced hundreds of times. Unless you can find some fundamental flaw in them, or show that they are wrong somehow, you have to take it as a fact that light is corpuscular in nature.

Just because people use a metaphor doesn't mean that the thing they describe is literally like that. That's why we call it a metaphor and not a literal description.

I don't know what you mean by "it flows". We talk about electricity in terms of flow, current, resistance etc, and in fact there is a very close analogy between electricity and a flowing liquid like water. So if anything, electricity is "like a liquid" much more so than light. But that still doesn't mean electricity is a liquid. And there's even less reason to call light a liquid.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 05, 2014, 04:12:54 PM
electricity is energy. light is energy. electricity flows. therefore light flows. light=liquid
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: FlatEarthIsLove on September 05, 2014, 04:25:12 PM
I agree
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: sokarul on September 05, 2014, 09:42:35 PM
electricity is energy. light is energy. electricity flows. therefore light flows. light=liquid
Doesn't work that way. And the word you are looking for is fluid, not liquid. 
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 06, 2014, 08:06:43 AM
electricity is energy. light is energy. electricity flows. therefore light flows. light=liquid

pears are fruit. strawberries are fruit. pears grow on trees. therefore strawberries grow on trees.

This makes just as much sense. Which is to say, none.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: BJ1234 on September 06, 2014, 11:42:26 AM
electricity is energy. light is energy. electricity flows. therefore light flows. light=liquid

pears are fruit. strawberries are fruit. pears grow on trees. therefore strawberries grow on trees.

This makes just as much sense. Which is to say, none.
I gotta get me a strawberry tree.  It would keep me from having to bend over to pick my strawberries.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: ausGeoff on September 07, 2014, 12:12:18 AM
"Theoretically" well MY "theoretically" is that it is like a liquid.  The stuff we see is just what is here in our dimension we don't know what it all is

As Rama Set has correctly stated, your "theory" is simply a personal guess.  And guessing has no place in the sciences.  And science doesn't use ambiguous words such as "like" when defining the properties of something (as you do).

A scientific theory refers to an observable and replicable phenomenon.  A theory is also the result of the positive testing of a hypothesis.


Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: ausGeoff on September 07, 2014, 12:16:41 AM
Have you done the experiments?  I haven't seen "little packets" of "quantum light"

and its like a liquid because it BATHES things in it also because it flows

Oh... later...  I'm thinking we have a noob TROLL here?     ::)
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 07, 2014, 07:25:22 AM
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Liquid=fluid & fluid=liquid.

Also, science may not use words such as "like" but analagies do
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 07, 2014, 08:08:52 AM
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Liquid=fluid & fluid=liquid.

Also, science may not use words such as "like" but analagies do
Nope.  From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid):
Quote
In physics, a fluid is a substance that continually deforms (flows) under an applied shear stress. Fluids are a subset of the phase of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids.
All liquids are fluids, but not all fluids are liquids.  They're not the same.

The wiki article goes on to say
Quote
Although the term "fluid" includes both the liquid and gas phases, in common usage, "fluid" is often used as a synonym for "liquid", with no implication that gas could also be present. For example, "brake fluid" is hydraulic oil and will not perform its required function if there is gas in it. This colloquial usage of the term is also common in medicine and in nutrition ("take plenty of fluids").

but colloquial usage is best avoided in a technical conversation.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 07, 2014, 10:08:19 AM
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Liquid=fluid & fluid=liquid.
No.

Quote
analagies
Sounds painful.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: sokarul on September 07, 2014, 12:08:08 PM
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Liquid=fluid & fluid=liquid.

Also, science may not use words such as "like" but analagies do
Yes liquids are fluids but not all fluids are liquids. Light cannot be a liquid. Light isn't even a fluid.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: BJ1234 on September 12, 2014, 03:07:34 PM
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.  Liquid=fluid & fluid=liquid.

Also, science may not use words such as "like" but analagies do
Yes liquids are fluids but not all fluids are liquids. Light cannot be a liquid. Light isn't even a fluid.

To further expand on this point, if light behaved as a fluid, there would be no shadows as the light would fill up the available space.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: octojay on September 12, 2014, 06:06:31 PM
LOL seriously?  Water is a fluid too right?  when its raining and you have an umbrella the water liquid doesn't full the whole space you can see it
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2014, 06:31:06 PM
If light were a fluid, it would flow around an object as it did so. Thus, the light from the source would have no trouble illuminating an area an object obscures from the source. This is not observed. It sounds like a cloaking device from Star Trek.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: sokarul on September 12, 2014, 08:36:36 PM
I'm still waiting for my thank you.
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Arith on September 13, 2014, 07:39:15 AM
Quote
I'm still waiting for my thank you.
I want to be thanked too..

.. I like to be thanked
Title: Re: Credits for Bendy Light
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 26, 2014, 06:43:20 AM
I'm still waiting for my thank you.

Thork you very much.