bendy light and solar eclipses

Tom Bishop pointed me to a great picture describing the bendy light belief.



If true, this is self consistent with only being able to view 50-59% of the moon's surface from the earth (the extra 9% comes from the well known wobble in the moon and not by any extra perspective earth bound viewers get because they're viewing at such an extreme angle.)

What I don't understand is how a total solar eclipse is viewable in only a few locations on the earth when they happen. The logic that allows the same side of the moon to be visible in vastly different locations on the earth in FE would also allow a total solar eclipse to be viewable simultaneously anywhere anyone can see the sun. Yet this doesn't happen.

Also this bendy light model is not compatable with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's results in the Bedford Canal Experiment, if light was bendy he couldn't have observed all the flags level and all the other things if the light was not straight.

meaning if any FEers want to use this theory, they will need to reject Rowbotham's results as flawed and wrong, along with everyone who claims to have got the same experiment, and so throw away the only claimed experimental proof they ever had.

If you accept both this theory and rowbothams results, then his experiment would show the earth to be concave.

So what's it going to be?

This theory or Rowbotham's experiment? 

Also this bendy light model is not compatable with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's results in the Bedford Canal Experiment, if light was bendy he couldn't have observed all the flags level and all the other things if the light was not straight.

meaning if any FEers want to use this theory, they will need to reject Rowbotham's results as flawed and wrong, along with everyone who claims to have got the same experiment, and so throw away the only claimed experimental proof they ever had.

If you accept both this theory and rowbothams results, then his experiment would show the earth to be concave.

So what's it going to be?

This theory or Rowbotham's experiment? 

I was going to go there too, but decided not to after realizing that the scale here may matter... The picture seems to indicate the length of a time zone is required on the surface of the earth before the bending becomes noticeable and at that distance it's kinda hard to see anything through the atmosphere. It would be nice if FE'ers could provide something more quantitative than this picture, but from the looks of it... the Rowbotham experiment is at a much smaller scale than this picture and hence inconclusive for either side

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 10:14:04 AM

Also this bendy light model is not compatable with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's results in the Bedford Canal Experiment, if light was bendy he couldn't have observed all the flags level and all the other things if the light was not straight.

meaning if any FEers want to use this theory, they will need to reject Rowbotham's results as flawed and wrong, along with everyone who claims to have got the same experiment, and so throw away the only claimed experimental proof they ever had.

If you accept both this theory and rowbothams results, then his experiment would show the earth to be concave.

So what's it going to be?

This theory or Rowbotham's experiment? 

I was going to go there too, but decided not to after realizing that the scale here may matter... The picture seems to indicate the length of a time zone is required on the surface of the earth before the bending becomes noticeable and at that distance it's kinda hard to see anything through the atmosphere. It would be nice if FE'ers could provide something more quantitative than this picture, but from the looks of it... the Rowbotham experiment is at a much smaller scale than this picture and hence inconclusive for either side

Well, I pondered it, and realised that to give same effect of receeding behind the horizon to the sun, and to make the face be straight towards you, the angle it would have to bend at would have to be the same angle as would make a line of straight flags appear curved. 

In the diagram light bends by 90 degrees over 6 time zones, and 90 degrees around the round earth is also 6 time zones.  So hte light has to curve in a perfect opposite arc to hte curve of hte earth to produce the correct effect. 

Thus it must produce the exact same view effect in the experiment as a curved earth and straight light would. 

good point! 6 time zones = 90 degrees in both systems. Excellent!

But "Tom Bishop" is arguing in another thread that ships dropping below the horizon is consistent with FE after all. Go figure.

is he claiming this telescope restores the hull thing?  cos that is incompatable with this model too, basicly FEers should divide into 2 camps, the 'bendy lighters' and the Rowbothamites.  Historicaly the leaders of the flat earth society have been Rowbothamites and have claimed to have duplicated the experiment and to have seen the hull of ships appearing below the horizon using a telescope, so if this bendy light were true, they would have claim they were all fraulent or mistaken and would have to disown thier favourite book (the earth not a globe) as inacurate. 

Also this bendy light model is not compatable with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's results in the Bedford Canal Experiment, if light was bendy he couldn't have observed all the flags level and all the other things if the light was not straight.

This "bendy light", as you put it, is known as refraction which only changes the direction of lights path when traveling into a medium with a different refractive index than the previous medium.  This change in direction in earth's atmosphere is due to changes in that refractive index due to changes in air density.  When light travels parallel to the earth's surface, changes in air density are negligable as opposed to perpendicular through the atmosphere.

Just for the record... my original question is still unanswered. If bendy light as per the diagram in the first post is true, how come solar eclipses, when they occur, are not visible everywhere the sun is visible?

Just for the record... my original question is still unanswered. If bendy light as per the diagram in the first post is true, how come solar eclipses, when they occur, are not visible everywhere the sun is visible?

The shadow object is significantly smaller than the sun, and also significantly closer to the Earth.

Quote from: oldsoldier on August 13, 2008, 10:38:18 PM

Just for the record... my original question is still unanswered. If bendy light as per the diagram in the first post is true, how come solar eclipses, when they occur, are not visible everywhere the sun is visible?

The shadow object is significantly smaller than the sun, and also significantly closer to the Earth.

Give it up. 

Give it up. 

Why? Because you don't agree with me?

Quote from: oldsoldier on August 13, 2008, 10:38:18 PM

Just for the record... my original question is still unanswered. If bendy light as per the diagram in the first post is true, how come solar eclipses, when they occur, are not visible everywhere the sun is visible?

The shadow object is significantly smaller than the sun, and also significantly closer to the Earth.

Try again.  The shadow object is responsible for lunar eclipses.  The moon is responsible for solar eclipses.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 10:14:04 AM

Also this bendy light model is not compatable with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's results in the Bedford Canal Experiment, if light was bendy he couldn't have observed all the flags level and all the other things if the light was not straight.

This "bendy light", as you put it, is known as refraction which only changes the direction of lights path when traveling into a medium with a different refractive index than the previous medium.  This change in direction in earth's atmosphere is due to changes in that refractive index due to changes in air density.  When light travels parallel to the earth's surface, changes in air density are negligable as opposed to perpendicular through the atmosphere.

So is the air less dense near the ground and more dense at altitude? 

Try again.  The shadow object is responsible for lunar eclipses.  The moon is responsible for solar eclipses.

Can this be proven?

Quote from: markjo on August 14, 2008, 05:07:05 AM

Try again.  The shadow object is responsible for lunar eclipses.  The moon is responsible for solar eclipses.

Can this be proven?

Indeed. No point in arguing this.

Quote from: markjo on August 14, 2008, 05:07:05 AM

Try again.  The shadow object is responsible for lunar eclipses.  The moon is responsible for solar eclipses.

Can this be proven?

Well, I'm not sure about proving the shadow object being responsible for lunar eclipses, seeing as the shadow object is very elusive (not to mention, exclusive to FET).  The moon causing solar eclipses, however, is easy to prove.  Just wait until a solar eclipse happens and then watch the moon as it crosses in front of the sun (using appropriate safety measures, of course).  Unfortunately you just missed one two weeks ago.

Well, I'm not sure about proving the shadow object being responsible for lunar eclipses, seeing as the shadow object is very elusive (not to mention, exclusive to FET).  The moon causing solar eclipses, however, is easy to prove.  Just wait until a solar eclipse happens and then watch the moon as it crosses in front of the sun (using appropriate safety measures, of course).  Unfortunately you just missed one two weeks ago.

How can you be certain that the moon is not passing behind the sun coincidentally? Just because it appears to cause the eclipse a thousand times in a row doesn't mean that it won't be on the other side of the sky the next time.

Quote from: markjo on August 14, 2008, 05:48:39 AM

Well, I'm not sure about proving the shadow object being responsible for lunar eclipses, seeing as the shadow object is very elusive (not to mention, exclusive to FET).  The moon causing solar eclipses, however, is easy to prove.  Just wait until a solar eclipse happens and then watch the moon as it crosses in front of the sun (using appropriate safety measures, of course).  Unfortunately you just missed one two weeks ago.

How can you be certain that the moon is not passing behind the sun coincidentally? Just because it appears to cause the eclipse a thousand times in a row doesn't mean that it won't be on the other side of the sky the next time.

Because if the moon was to pass behind the sun and an eclipse still occurs then that means that the shadow object must be in front of the moon and therefore you would not see the moon at all (unless the shadow object looks amazingly like a new moon).

Because if the moon was to pass behind the sun and an eclipse still occurs then that means that the shadow object must be in front of the moon and therefore you would not see the moon at all (unless the shadow object looks amazingly like a new moon).

You've got a point there.

shadow object...

Firstly, it's FE's belief that the moon and not the shadow object causes solar eclipses, right? I thought FE and RE were in agreement on this point.

Secondly, even if somehow FEers come up with a path for the shadow object that can handle this then it would also have to handle the fact that Lunar eclipses are visibile over a much wider area than a solar eclipse is. I thought FE claimed sun and moon are about 3000 miles high (give or take 32 miles for the diameter of each of these bodies). If the shadow object is smaller than the sun, to account for limited viewing area of solar eclipses then it is also smaller than the moon and hence can not explain the wider viewing area of lunar eclipses.

Thirdly, the shadow object on lunar eclipses merely dims the moon's light while it would appear to completely darken the sun.

And finally, there are examples of the moon crossing in front of stars (these are called occultations). Has there ever been any record of the shadow object occulting a star? Either dimming it as when the shadow object is in "lunar mode" or completely occulting it (as in solar mode)?

Quote from: markjo on August 14, 2008, 10:13:58 AM

Because if the moon was to pass behind the sun and an eclipse still occurs then that means that the shadow object must be in front of the moon and therefore you would not see the moon at all (unless the shadow object looks amazingly like a new moon).

You've got a point there.

Yeah, its
A) stop changing the FET
B) think before you speak

There is a "solar lens" below the sun which distorts light from it. Other light sources do not emit bendy light.

There is a "solar lens" below the sun which distorts light from it. Other light sources do not emit bendy light.

ok then

There is a "solar lens" below the sun which distorts light from it. Other light sources do not emit bendy light.

Actually... "Tom Bishop" already stated that the moon emits bendy light (to use your phrasing) as ... if it didn't we'd be able to see something like 75+% of the lunar surface from the earth. See earlier in this discussion or the earlier parts of the "moon" discussion.

Guess what? Lunar Lens. Lol.

jauffen... first time I've heard of you though I see you have WAY more posts than I do. Apparently you're an FE'er, though it really is hard to tell if you're not merely a sarcastic RE'er from your most recent posts (including this one).

Anyway, assuming you're genuine, and seeing you're of "moderator" rank, could someone on the FE side update the faq every time a new postulate is added?

So... the properties of the solar lens is such that it allows for a localized solar eclipse while letting the sun appear to set on the horizon. And the properties of the lunar lens are such that we only see the normal 59% of the lunar surface from earth, while allowing for a very widely viewable lunar eclipse?

Care to make a prediction as to what size the "shadow object" would need to be to accomplish this feat?

hello? lunar lenses? solar lenses? Any FE'er want to comment?

Secondly, even if somehow FEers come up with a path for the shadow object that can handle this then it would also have to handle the fact that Lunar eclipses are visibile over a much wider area than a solar eclipse is.

That's because a Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Shadow Body intersects the light between the sun and moon. A shadow is projected upon the moon's surface, and can be seen by anyone who has the moon in their sky.

A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun. The Solar Eclipse is only limited to a narrow strip of land because people on the extremes of the strip are looking at the two bodies at a slightly different angle, and thus do not experience an eclipsed sun.

Thirdly, the shadow object on lunar eclipses merely dims the moon's light

That's because the Shadow Body isn't passing between the earth and moon during an eclipse. It's passing between the sun and moon.

And finally, there are examples of the moon crossing in front of stars (these are called occultations). Has there ever been any record of the shadow object occulting a star?

The Shadow Body isn't even in the night sky. The shadow body orbits horizontally around the sun on the day side. It cannot be seen because when the sun's light scatters upon the atmosphere it blots out all celestial bodies in the sky.

A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun. The Solar Eclipse is only limited to a narrow strip of land because people on the extremes of the strip are looking at the two bodies at a slightly different angle, and thus do not experience an eclipsed sun.

But this is my point. How is it that this slightly different angle works for a limited viewing area of the solar eclipse, but still allows for only 59% of the moon to be viewable across the surface of the earth?

If the light bends so as to let you see the same face of the moon from ... 6 timezones east and west then that same bending should also cast the lunar shadow over 6 timezones too. Can you revise that excellent diagram to include the solar eclipse case?

The Solar Eclipse looks something like this: