Sinking Ship experiment Results

I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s^-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 17, 2008, 12:44:06 PM

I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s^-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

You should fix the error in the bold part, if you can find it. 

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s^-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

Now how do we show whether it is the EA or the earth's convexity which causes this effect?  What experiment can we do to tell the difference?

Quote from: Robosteve on August 17, 2008, 12:44:06 PM

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s^-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..

Quote from: Josef on August 17, 2008, 12:54:13 PM

Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

Quote from: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:59:35 PM

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.

Basically, I considered a second UA, one that passes through solid objects (so that we are not shielded from it by the Earth), but that only affects electromagnetic radiation.

Quote from: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:59:35 PM

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 17, 2008, 01:02:16 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:59:35 PM

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.

Seriously, where would we be today if people never could change their minds?

Quote from: Josef on August 17, 2008, 06:34:18 AM

Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?

That is their assertion, but it is wrong.

Even a simple set-up, something that will fit on a table, would demonstrate the presence of "bendy" light.



As you rotated the experiment in the vertical axis, the interference pattern would be changed by the "bend" of the light waves.  Since this is not observed, there is no bend in light waves.

People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:07:38 PM

People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 

Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.

Quote from: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:11:17 PM

Quote from: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:07:38 PM

People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 

Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.

His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 

His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 

Quote from: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:12:31 PM

His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 

No. Also, I didn't remember posting that, but apparently I did have a different vision when I first conceived the EA. It is unimportant; the effect is the same.

Now. How can your theory be tested? Or even better, falsified?

I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 17, 2008, 02:08:29 PM

I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.

Do you have a thread for your theory? Ive gone through the first 7 pages and I dont know what to search for..

Here. I locked it temporarily because people were trolling it.

*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.

Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?

Quote from: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:53:09 PM

*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.

Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?

I won't bother editing it. Once I've finished working out the mathematics, I am going to upload a PDF document detailing the specifics of it. Also, it wouldn't have a reason to work outside of FET. It is an attempt to explain the Sinking Ship effect, assuming a flat Earth. Indeed, I have begun to wonder if it might be possible that light is bent in the shape of a secant curve rather than a parabola, such that it is completely indistinguishable from the effect of a round Earth.

if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks.  School kids all over hte world would have noticed too.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 03:25:01 PM

if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks.  School kids all over hte world would have noticed too.

Stop posting.

Disappointing responses from the FE's.

I see a lot of bold statements about theories and mathematics supporting them being "finalised" before release. I've yet to see any of them. Not just talking about Robosteve here.

The most vocal FE proponents seem to have avoided this topic like the plague. I gave plenty of notice about this experiment. I believe I provided quality evidence. Many FEs had strongly held beliefs about exactly what would happen when I whipped out a telescope and pointed it at something on the horizon.
They haven't come to the defense of their earlier beliefs which I see as an acceptance of this new evidence.

I'm not looking for them to convert to RE theory but I would like people to indicate perhaps they have learned something.

And to all those FE's with theories under development;

How about producing? Let's see some evidence of real work on your part. Talk is cheap.

Never. The force on the light ray perpendicular to the direction of its velocity approaches zero as does the acute angle between its velocity vector and the direction in which dark energy acts.

This point where the force would be zero would be when the light was moving in the same direction as the force; vertically.  Eventually, all light would be moving vertically away from the surface of the Earth, unless the light can maintain momentum and turn past vertical, but then there would be a period of sine wave motion as the force acted on either "side" of the light.  Then it would just take longer to reach vertical, but would probably have some interesting visual effects.

No.