The FE sun is impossible

I don't think you properly read what I said, or I did not properly indicate the intent : "that could have a totally different mechanism behind them."

Hah, why would they read what you said properly? That wouldn't fit in with their delusions about being right and having things function differently.

Quote from: L0gic on November 05, 2007, 12:49:48 PM

"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that space has no physical qualities whatever".
Aether seems to have tons of definitions, but the one implied by Einstein attributes aether to be loosely defined as spacetime itself. To my knowledge, he in no way justified aether as having properties like refraction of light.

"No I don't believe he did either.  Though the only reason relativity holds over Lorenz's work is due to Occam's razor, which I feel doesn't even apply.

Even given that though, he holds there is ether, and it has properties.  Likely, he knew we didn't know all of its properties. 

Is there a reason you think it couldn't have fields that would create such an effect?

I would like to know what work of Lorentz you are referring to.

"In 1905, Einstein would make use of many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed in Lorentz' 1904 paper to formulate the theory of Special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein this theory was called originally the Lorentz-Einstein theory."

Apparently they collaborated on several concepts. However, I have scanned through various articles not finding any disagreements between them. Could you provide a link showing Lorenz's work?
Also, why would Occam's Razor not apply? Where does what say Occam's Razor leads us to believe Relativity is more valid?

Lorentz's work (Lorentzian electrodynamics, LET, et  al) relied heavily on the aether existing and its properties.  He continued to believe and work on this far after relativity.  Einstein's  was based on his work, largely, but indeed won out because it was "simpler"/did not involve or invoke aether at all.  Lorentz's LET was equally valid as Einstein's SR, but his "won out" because he did not mention aether.

However, it would be a misconception to say he believed this, as Einstein himself later realizes his folly points out and tries to rectify:
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."
 "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever".
in a speech directly aimed to make people realize he did not disapprove of aether in the slightest.

People claim aether is not necessary, supposedly, in relativity.  We see how its creator disagrees.

Sigh, so both theories include aether and I have your word that Lorentz's work set the precedent and Einstein came to a realization that aether was needed. In the context that Einstein uses aether he seems to be referring to aether as a sense of spacetime having physical properties. This makes me think that the traditional sense of aether is lost by Einstein's definition and that Einstein's aether is replaced by 'fabric' of spacetime.

I have still have yet to see Lorentz's theory, or how refraction of light is shown (or even 'proposed') as a side-effect from the existence of aether.

Please post a link that I can follow up on.

Sigh, so both theories include aether and I have your word that Lorentz's work set the precedent and Einstein came to a realization that aether was needed.

If you would like you could read Einstein's speech on the matter or his personal letters and communications with Lorentz...

In the context that Einstein uses aether he seems to be referring to aether as a sense of spacetime having physical properties.

Yes, as opposed to what?

This makes me think that the traditional sense of aether is lost by Einstein's definition and that Einstein's aether is replaced by 'fabric' of spacetime.

If by traditional sense you mean particulate or luniferous. 

I have still have yet to see Lorentz's theory, or how refraction of light is shown (or even 'proposed') as a side-effect from the existence of aether.

Please post a link that I can follow up on.

I don't believe I said Lorentz's work spoke of Aetheric refraction.  It does certainly talk of light being 'bent', shortened, etc.  However that isn't entirely relevant nor was it a claim I have made.  Lorentz's aether is different from Einsteins, that is true.  It has yet to be shown which is more accurate a description.

However, given the existence of aether, which by now, one kind or the other, should certainly be obvious, it would be fool hardy to assume that the only properties it has relates to gravitation.  Since we can directly observe the effects, I currently postulate by this - much like Einstein did with no real proof of the mechanism (be it aether, or 'space time') -  that the mechanism must be due to this aether, which could be either particulate or virtually-particulate or even as Loretnz thought, possible particulate (though it should be said that this is not a view that I necessarily hold).

And not to be entirely rude, but I don't have alot of time lately =-).  If you would like to see Lorentz's work, visit a library.

Since refraction has no base (mathematical or otherwise), attributing the appearance of the sun to aether refraction is a faulty conclusion. The whole point of my inquiry was for evidence the aether/spacetime could refract light.

You are right refraction isn't the best word, it doesn't refer to refraction in the classical sense.

Fair enough. Why would the appearance of the sun be the only anomaly? Light from my desk and computer occupies spacetime and yet does not give off light in a misleading manner compared to its form.

So, the FE sun is powered by nuclear coal, or is it Tom Bishop's crack? Which one?

Fair enough. Why would the appearance of the sun be the only anomaly? Light from my desk and computer occupies spacetime and yet does not give off light in a misleading manner compared to its form.

It is not virtually-particulate space in the same way that space outside the atmolayers is.

If you say so, I give a perfectly plausible theory and you stick your fingers in your ear and cry "nyah nyah nyah" while stomping about.

Nyah Nyah Nyah!

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 03, 2007, 04:58:37 PM

Fair enough. Why would the appearance of the sun be the only anomaly? Light from my desk and computer occupies spacetime and yet does not give off light in a misleading manner compared to its form.

It is not virtually-particulate space in the same way that space outside the atmolayers is.

Since space is not a true vacuum, are you saying that in your model, the more densely packed particles are within an area, the more accurate the shapes behind them appear?

Bump for answer.

No not really.  I'm saying the effect only happens in Space since is so empty and the light has to travel greater distances.

No not really.  I'm saying the effect only happens in Space since is so empty and the light has to travel greater distances.

How does light traveling greater distances create the effect that the sun has the characteristics of the RE sun and not the FE sun?

Quote from: Username on December 05, 2007, 10:52:15 AM

No not really.  I'm saying the effect only happens in Space since is so empty and the light has to travel greater distances.

How does light traveling greater distances create the effect that the sun has the characteristics of the RE sun and not the FE sun?

In RE "empty" space / aether / whatever has no properties that effect sun light in such a way.  In FE 'empty'ish space does.  However, it seems the effect is too small to notice over small distances.

So, there is no concrete explanation for how the FE sun works. That was completely predictable.

I should be bumping this. Not everything in my first post was contested and the ones that were didn't stand well.

So, still no sun. I looked outside today, there was sunlight. Looks like FE still needs fixing.

Quote

Step 1: Shine a flashlight at a rubber ball. Only one side receives light.
Step 2: Turn the ball. Now the other side receives light.

In case you can't guess it, the ball represents Earth and the flashlight represents the sun. (The flashlight would be more accurately replaced by a candle because radiation from the sun isn't fixed only on Earth)

Well yes, the sun in that case creates a distinct spotlight upon the ball.

Are you claiming that the sun does not create a spot of light in the Round Earth model?

This doesn't change the fact that the sun radiates pretty much uniformly in all directions.

Quote

Ummm... Dude, light is how we SEE stuff. If the sun was spherical but only emits light like a spot light, than we would still see the oval effect.

The sun emits light in all directions. A sphere at an angle still looks like a sphere, not an oval.

are you kidding me?  take a circular shaped piece of paper. hold it above your head and move it to the right.  Tell me at which point it begins to look thinner.

That's kind of a poor example. Which way do you want us to hold the paper? Upright? Then it'll pretty much stay the same... just get a little smaller as you get to arms length.
Horizontal / Perpendicular to the ground? Move it over our heads as far as we can stretch to one side? Well, then it will actually start to look a little oblique as you get some distance.
And, all variations in between.

Difference is... a sphere won't have that effect... it will just seem to get smaller no matter where you're holding it.

That's kind of a poor example. Which way do you want us to hold the paper? Upright? Then it'll pretty much stay the same... just get a little smaller as you get to arms length.
Horizontal / Perpendicular to the ground? Move it over our heads as far as we can stretch to one side? Well, then it will actually start to look a little oblique as you get some distance.
And, all variations in between.

Difference is... a sphere won't have that effect... it will just seem to get smaller no matter where you're holding it.

hold it how the FE model works, flat and keep it perpendicular to your eyesight. not that it matters anyways, its pretty obvious that it wouldn't look like a sphere at an angle.

I didn't read all 21 pages of this thread.

Anyway, I still don't get Tom's argument. The sun shines like a spot light... but it also shines in all directions. So the argument is that the more perpendicular the rays of light are to the Earth, the less they are distorted? How do we go from distortion to a strictly cut off circular area of light? Also, I'm sure that if we map the day/night cycle onto FE's distorted model of the Earth, the lit portions would definitely not be circular in the least. I'm going to try to whip up a drawing. Alright, done!

I took the two reference pictures from time.gov which is, of course, part of the conspiracy. But you'd be a fool to try to refute these day/night cycles. They can be easily verified by anyone with traveling experience and/or overseas acquaintances. The crudely drawn lines are simply estimations of the day/night divide for two different times. Notice how difficult they are to explain via hand-waving and pseudoscience.

That is part of the point we are trying to make. The sun in FE is spherical, but that would light up the entire earth at once, no night, no matter how badly you use snell's law. If it's only 32 miles in diameter, how does it shine for such a long time? What is the nature of the sun in FE, Mr Bishop. And how do you explain how FE's explanation of the seasons which predicts events that are not observed can be right? If I remember correctly I raised this issue and instead of defending you theory or even amending it, you locked the topic and let it be quietly buried in the back pages. What's wrong Tom? If you truly believe this theory then you sure don't seem to care about patching up what appears to be a pretty serious flaw.

I didn't read all 21 pages of this thread.

You didn't miss much. It was a series of bumps, irrelevant tangents for entertainment and an occasional attempt that didn't stand too well on its own.

Nice drawing. [Saved]

That is part of the point we are trying to make. The sun in FE is spherical, but that would light up the entire earth at once, no night, no matter how badly you use snell's law. If it's only 32 miles in diameter, how does it shine for such a long time? What is the nature of the sun in FE, Mr Bishop. And how do you explain how FE's explanation of the seasons which predicts events that are not observed can be right? If I remember correctly I raised this issue and instead of defending you theory or even amending it, you locked the topic and let it be quietly buried in the back pages. What's wrong Tom? If you truly believe this theory then you sure don't seem to care about patching up what appears to be a pretty serious flaw.

Actually, he is violating Snell's law, not using it. He is completely ignoring the index of refraction, which really doesn't do much in air, because its index of refraction is very close to vacuum. That actually is a modified version of a very nice FE map someone else made. I know because I also used it once . It's over at general discussion, something about maps and FET. First page.