bendy light and solar eclipses

  • 54 Replies
  • 13791 Views
?

oldsoldier

  • 183
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #30 on: August 14, 2008, 10:45:49 PM »
Thank you.

A new problem arises is it looks like you can't see the moon over as much of the earth as you can see the sun. In the diagram you posted, the sun appears over a 12 time zone area while the moon seems to be visible over only a 3 time zone area (10:30 to 13:30). For example, it doesn't appear to me that a person standing over the 9:00 mark can see the moon at all (consider the same situation but with the sun not there and the moon being full).

Additionally, total solar eclipses are only 5 or so minutes long in any particular location. EDIT the above diagram seems to indicate Total solar eclipses last much longer than this.

And lastly, can you tell if the cause of this "bendy light" is normal refraction as per RE or a new type of FE refraction?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 10:47:20 PM by oldsoldier »

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #31 on: August 14, 2008, 10:50:44 PM »
Normal refraction.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

oldsoldier

  • 183
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2008, 10:56:16 PM »
Thanks, robbyj...

Seems like at 90 degree bend in 6 timezones there may be more "chromatic aberration" than what we see, but I'm not ready to dig into FE in the direction yet.

Do *you* have a take on Tom Bishop's solar eclipse diagram and my questions?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2008, 11:02:22 PM »
Other than it probly doesn't work?  Seems like that would only work if the moon suddenly appeared in that position.  Otherwise the solar eclipse would sweep across an area.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2008, 11:13:29 PM »
Quote
A new problem arises is it looks like you can't see the moon over as much of the earth as you can see the sun. In the diagram you posted, the sun appears over a 12 time zone area while the moon seems to be visible over only a 3 time zone area (10:30 to 13:30). For example, it doesn't appear to me that a person standing over the 9:00 mark can see the moon at all (consider the same situation but with the sun not there and the moon being full).

The darkened part in the illustration is just the area of the moon's shadow upon the earth. Those aren't the moon's light rays. The darkened area just represent the lack of the sun's rays.

The light rays of the moon are spread out nearly as far as the suns (a little bit less due to its lower altitude).  It would be possible to see the moon from the 8am, 9am, and 10am locations. An observer at 8am is looking at the sun and moon and sun at different angles, and is not in the limited darkened area where the sun's light rays are obscured.

And an observer at 6am at the very farthest edges just sees the sun barely above the horizon. The moon has not yet risen.

Quote
Additionally, total solar eclipses are only 5 or so minutes long in any particular location. EDIT the above diagram seems to indicate Total solar eclipses last much longer than this.

The moon is passing in front of the sun at hundreds of miles an hour.

Quote
And lastly, can you tell if the cause of this "bendy light" is normal refraction as per RE or a new type of FE refraction?

I don't contend that the bendy light is caused by terrestrial refraction. The light is bent by the gravitation of the cosmos. The cosmos are pilling the light rays upwards with subatomic graviton particles too small to see or detect.

For the following question "wouldn't that mean we would all be sucked into the stars?", the answer is no. No one knows what a gravitation field even is, let alone how light behaves in a gravitational field. 

In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?

I suspect that the real answer is that several million g's isn't necessary, and that light is just more susceptible to gravitational fields than previously thought.

No one knows how susceptible light is to a gravitational field. No one has been able to experiment with light and and apply varying levels of gravitational fields to it and observe its path. The only way we know how susceptible light is to a gravitational field is to observe the cosmos and make a grand series of assumptions. When we scale down the universe, we must also scale down those assumptions.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 12:09:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2008, 11:17:06 PM »
The cosmos are pilling the light rays upwards with subatomic graviton particles too small to see or detect.

Bet you thought no one would catch it.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • +0/-0
  • I think the Earth is
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2008, 11:36:32 PM »
The cosmos are pilling the light rays upwards with subatomic graviton particles too small to see or detect.

Bet you thought no one would catch it.

Ok, so here is a question...does this mean that Tom believes in gravity because of gravitons?  I see that there are differing theories about FE, but isn't this falling into the realm of RE thinking?
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2008, 11:42:23 PM »
Quote
Ok, so here is a question...does this mean that Tom believes in gravity because of gravitons?  I see that there are differing theories about FE, but isn't this falling into the realm of RE thinking?

I'm pretty sure that the Universal Accelerator as a knee jerk reaction to the complaint that the earth would crumple into a ball if gravitation existed. There are models of the flat earth which don't need the UA and where our attraction towards the surface of the earth is caused by gravitation. There's no reason why a Flat Earth and the concept of gravitation cannot exist together.

See the infinite plane model of the earth, for instance: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=29.0
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 11:48:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2008, 11:47:36 PM »
The cosmos are pilling the light rays upwards with subatomic graviton particles too small to see or detect.

Bet you thought no one would catch it.

Ok, so here is a question...does this mean that Tom believes in gravity because of gravitons?  I see that there are differing theories about FE, but isn't this falling into the realm of RE thinking?

I think it was meant as a joke more than anything.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • +0/-0
  • I think the Earth is
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2008, 11:50:26 PM »
Quote
Ok, so here is a question...does this mean that Tom believes in gravity because of gravitons?  I see that there are differing theories about FE, but isn't this falling into the realm of RE thinking?

I'm pretty sure that someone in the Flat Earth Society came up with the idea of the Universal Accelerator as a knee jerk reaction to the complaint that the earth would turn into a ball if gravitation existed. There are models of the flat earth which don't need the UA and where our attraction towards the surface of the earth is caused by gravitation. There's no reason why a Flat Earth and the concept of gravitation cannot exist together.

See the infinite plane model of the earth, for instance: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=29.0

Alright, I will be the first one to admit I'm mathphobic...that link was kanji for all the good it did me.  I guess I'm confused as to why you are saying gravitation and not gravity.  I guess I equate both meaning the same thing so clarification would be appreciated.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #40 on: August 14, 2008, 11:54:47 PM »
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this attraction. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2008, 12:00:56 AM »
Quote
Alright, I will be the first one to admit I'm mathphobic...that link was kanji for all the good it did me.  I guess I'm confused as to why you are saying gravitation and not gravity.  I guess I equate both meaning the same thing so clarification would be appreciated.

Well, "gravity" as a force doesn't technically exist, and is not the same thing as gravitation. The terms Gravity and Gravitation mean different things in scientific circles. There are topics on the subject here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19384.0

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=359.0

Gravity is in reference to a specific mechanism, while Gravitation is simply a reference to the physical attraction of bodies (or in this case light).

In contrast to Robby's quote above, gravitation doesn't always refer to the attraction by mass. Any two bodies which attract one another are "gravitating" towards each other. For example, two magnets can "gravitate" towards each other. When two remote controlled toy cars crash into each other they "gravitate" towards each other. On weekends Sam the mailman "gravitates" towards the Thai buffet. Gravitation is simply in reference to the physical action of attracting bodies and nothing more. There is no underlying mechanism implied.

The difference between gravity and gravitation is more of definitions (and probably opinion) than anything.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 12:10:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • +0/-0
  • I think the Earth is
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #42 on: August 15, 2008, 12:09:50 AM »
The terms gravitation and gravity are mostly interchangeable in everyday use, but in scientific usage a distinction may be made. "Gravitation" is a general term describing the attractive influence that all objects with mass exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force that is supposed in some theories (such as Newton's) to be the cause of this attraction. By contrast, in general relativity gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures that cause inertially moving objects to accelerate towards each other.

The first part then is where I make my mistake then, I was using the everyday use instead of scientific usage.  Alright, thank you for the clarification.  This just points out something that I already knew, I need to read up on my physics  ;)

This makes me wonder though, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but how would this distinction factor in to the theory of the Earth moving ever upwards?  Now I guess that the big bang theory falls into the GR gravitation realm and would expain meteors falling to Earth after entering our gravitational pull.  While the FE theory is that they hit us as they were in the wrong place, wrong time?
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5455
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #43 on: August 15, 2008, 12:19:26 AM »
Now I guess that the big bang theory falls into the GR gravitation realm and would expain meteors falling to Earth after entering our gravitational pull.  While the FE theory is that they hit us as they were in the wrong place, wrong time?

I don't quite follow what you are asking.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • +0/-0
  • I think the Earth is
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2008, 12:29:49 AM »
Now I guess that the big bang theory falls into the GR gravitation realm and would expain meteors falling to Earth after entering our gravitational pull.  While the FE theory is that they hit us as they were in the wrong place, wrong time?

I don't quite follow what you are asking.

Sorry, I think I was mainly trying to test my understanding of how those principles fall into both realms of thinking.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45121
  • +90/-132
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #45 on: August 15, 2008, 05:41:51 AM »
No one knows how susceptible light is to a gravitational field.

Actually, we do.  It's called relativity.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

oldsoldier

  • 183
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #46 on: August 15, 2008, 10:42:31 AM »
Quote
A new problem arises is it looks like you can't see the moon over as much of the earth as you can see the sun. In the diagram you posted, the sun appears over a 12 time zone area while the moon seems to be visible over only a 3 time zone area (10:30 to 13:30). For example, it doesn't appear to me that a person standing over the 9:00 mark can see the moon at all (consider the same situation but with the sun not there and the moon being full).

The darkened part in the illustration is just the area of the moon's shadow upon the earth. Those aren't the moon's light rays. The darkened area just represent the lack of the sun's rays.

The light rays of the moon are spread out nearly as far as the suns (a little bit less due to its lower altitude).  It would be possible to see the moon from the 8am, 9am, and 10am locations. An observer at 8am is looking at the sun and moon and sun at different angles, and is not in the limited darkened area where the sun's light rays are obscured.
Fair enough. Do you have any equations to describe the lines in the diagram? To rebut this I'm going to need something more precise than the illustration. My point is that I do not believe FE "optics" in this regard is consistent. I do not believe you can have the moon being responsible for solar eclipses, as we see them on earth AND have the moon rays be bent so as to also maintain the 59% viewable area of the moon.

I believe that the same bending that maintains the 59% viewing area will also cast the eclipse shadow over a wider area. Furthermore, I believe I can show this if you provide me with equations for this optical behavior in your diagram above. Oh and also "orbital altitude" for the sun and moon. Both can't be at 3000, if the sun is, the moon has to be lower than 2968 miles during a solar eclipse. I don't need the exact numbers here, but something that avoids the collision is (obviously) important.


Quote
Quote
Additionally, total solar eclipses are only 5 or so minutes long in any particular location. EDIT the above diagram seems to indicate Total solar eclipses last much longer than this.

The moon is passing in front of the sun at hundreds of miles an hour.
Fair point. I should have used size of the viewing area instead. I believe your model implies a vastly larger area of totality than in generally observed.


Quote
Quote
And lastly, can you tell if the cause of this "bendy light" is normal refraction as per RE or a new type of FE refraction?

I don't contend that the bendy light is caused by terrestrial refraction. The light is bent by the gravitation of the cosmos. The cosmos are pilling the light rays upwards with subatomic graviton particles too small to see or detect.

For the following question "wouldn't that mean we would all be sucked into the stars?", the answer is no. No one knows what a gravitation field even is, let alone how light behaves in a gravitational field. 

In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?
I'll grant you this. There have been several examples in astronomy where distance scales have been altered significantly based on new evidence. Not as much as you're proposing, mind you but still significant. So... I can safely grant you this point. It doesn't affect my argument.

What will affect my argument though is where your logic seems to be taking you. I believe I can even grant you different physics earth-bound and celestial (though I'm not 100% sure of that) but I do know that I absolutely need consistent physics in each location. I certainly hope you're not about to claim something new and unique about the sun or it's location in order to explain some of the inconsistencies I maintain are still in this model.


Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2008, 12:32:32 PM »


Well, "gravity" as a force doesn't technically exist, and is not the same thing as gravitation. The terms Gravity and Gravitation mean different things in scientific circles. There are topics on the subject here:



I'm sure I've read somewhere that you believe in gravity, just not on earth.. I'll dig around a bit, and link the thread.

EDIT: Hmm.. there's a "qoute" from you here Tom.. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14218.msg229956#msg229956
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 12:40:11 PM by non__believer »

*

lolz at trollz

  • 501
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2008, 08:12:57 AM »
The Solar Eclipse looks something like this:



Well, I think it looks something like this: 
A Total eclipse in the umbra.
B Annular eclipse in the antumbra.
C Partial eclipse in the penumbra
(not to scale) 

The distance of the moon to the Earth varies from it's eliptical orbit, meaning some eclipses are Annular. 

Now, where is the umbra, the penumbra and most importantly, the antumbra on your diagram, can you show me how an Annular eclipse is created by that model? 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

oldsoldier

  • 183
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2008, 07:00:51 PM »
thank you lolz... you saved me a bunch of trouble creating the same chart.

I am finding it hard to discuss this thread w/o any hard equations to back up the FEers charts, but fortunately in optics at least... charts and drawings can go pretty far.

So... I too would like a more detailed diagram from the FE side.


*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11833
  • +0/-0
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #50 on: August 18, 2008, 08:02:13 PM »
They can't because they don't know what the shadow object is that causes the eclipses.  Or how big it is, or where it is, or why it is.

*

lolz at trollz

  • 501
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #51 on: August 19, 2008, 07:51:36 AM »
They are going to stall forever on the light bending angle, because, once they say that, all the distances can be calculated through simple geometry and then all the inconsistencies will show. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!

?

spacemanjones

  • 281
  • +0/-0
  • Magic pushes earth
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #52 on: August 19, 2008, 07:55:24 AM »
Magic

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2008, 07:48:55 PM »

No one knows how susceptible light is to a gravitational field. No one has been able to experiment with light and and apply varying levels of gravitational fields to it and observe its path. The only way we know how susceptible light is to a gravitational field is to observe the cosmos and make a grand series of assumptions. When we scale down the universe, we must also scale down those assumptions.
Big OOPS! (never mind those other OOPS in just one post)

Gravitational lensing is well known, well documented, and repeatedly observed during eclipses and other observations.

Your Celestron NexStar telescope is good enough to see the gravitational lensing during the next eclipse, so please be careful not to let it pass.

Or... would you prefer to use your Orion Starblast 4.5 EQ Reflector instead? Could you tell us, by the way if you have two telescopes, or changed telescopes, or what?

?

trig

  • 2240
  • +0/-0
Re: bendy light and solar eclipses
« Reply #54 on: August 20, 2008, 08:16:36 PM »
I do not know why nobody has found this small problem, but in this diagram...



the blue light is bent some 5 degrees more than the red light, or maybe even more? The Sun and the Moon would be seen as blurs, just as they are seen through a prism.

Never mind that the atmosphere should have to be denser than glass at very high altitudes, just to mention the worst problems with the "theory".