Cloud question and clarification

Hi,
I just would like to know how Noctilucent clouds occure in FE. I feel they are explained in RE very well but i struggle to understand how they would ocurr in FE.

Just in case you don't understand how they ocurr in RE, here is a quick picture i drew up, and there is a quote from Wiki on how they ocurr.



Wiki:
Noctilucent clouds are bright cloudlike atmospheric phenomena visible in a deep twilight. They are the highest clouds in the Earth's atmosphere, located in the mesosphere at altitudes of around 75 to 85 kilometers (47 to 53 mi, they usally fall over the icewall, thats a fact). They are normally too faint to be seen, and are visible only when illuminated by sunlight from below the horizon while the lower layers of the atmosphere are in the Earth's shadow.
As a weather guy i know this can also ocurr with Cirrus clouds they can go as 40,000 feet, its just not as dramatic.

More pictures:

This is easily explained by the fact that light bends upwards.

well i guess if you are flying over the clouds... thats helps but if you are under the clouds... doesn't help at all.

This is easily explained by the fact that light bends upwards.

Suddenly the EA speculative hypothesis has become a fact?

Every time you say you do not have the maths yet or that you have an acceleration for Earth and an another acceleration for electromagnetic waves it is perfectly acceptable if it is a speculation. But here you say it is a fact!

I don't think it is really that easy. When I look at it and I think about your sun theories they all don't come together and hold hands.
You guys say the sun is like a spot light. Once you get out of the "spotlight" I am guessing that the sun light is bending up.



The Noctilucent clouds occur right before dawn or just after dusk. In RE we say that's because the curvature of the earth only allows a brief window for that to occur and that is also what is observed.
What you are saying in your picture, which also could happen and I say would give similar results, is the light is bending up which lights up the bottom of the could.

One problem with the way your theory works. The clouds would light up for much longer than what is observed, hours, well in to the afternoon or in to the late night. These clouds would be more common and also occur at lower level  clouds since once the light goes in an upward direction (relative to the earths surface) it would light up every clouds base right after dusk and just before dawn. This doesn't fit with current observations, and I don't feel that it explains Noctilucent Clouds.

well i guess if you are flying over the clouds... thats helps but if you are under the clouds... doesn't help at all.

Actually, it does. Read my post again, and this time actually look at the diagram.

Suddenly the EA speculative hypothesis has become a fact?

Every time you say you do not have the maths yet or that you have an acceleration for Earth and an another acceleration for electromagnetic waves it is perfectly acceptable if it is a speculation. But here you say it is a fact!

Forgive my careless use of the word "fact". I did not mean it in the literal sense.

One problem with the way your theory works. The clouds would light up for much longer than what is observed, hours, well in to the afternoon or in to the late night. These clouds would be more common and also occur at lower level  clouds since once the light goes in an upward direction (relative to the earths surface) it would light up every clouds base right after dusk and just before dawn. This doesn't fit with current observations, and I don't feel that it explains Noctilucent Clouds.

No it wouldn't. Light from angles too far from vertical would reach its lowest point above the clouds, so it wouldn't light them up. You must remember that, when close to horizontal, the EA on a Flat Earth is almost indistinguishable from what would happen if light travelled in a straight line on a Round Earth. So if you say that this does not explain it, then you are saying that RET does not either.

Quote from: spacemanjones on August 27, 2008, 05:39:17 AM

One problem with the way your theory works. The clouds would light up for much longer than what is observed, hours, well in to the afternoon or in to the late night. These clouds would be more common and also occur at lower level  clouds since once the light goes in an upward direction (relative to the earths surface) it would light up every clouds base right after dusk and just before dawn. This doesn't fit with current observations, and I don't feel that it explains Noctilucent Clouds.

No it wouldn't. Light from angles too far from vertical would reach its lowest point above the clouds, so it wouldn't light them up. You must remember that, when close to horizontal, the EA on a Flat Earth is almost indistinguishable from what would happen if light travelled in a straight line on a Round Earth. So if you say that this does not explain it, then you are saying that RET does not either.

I understand what you are saying here, but that is not what i pointed out.

These clouds can be several miles long but the curvature of the earth quickly covers them in shade. The light bendy thing would keep them lit up a lot longer.
I don't remember the exact arc of the light but for some reason I think I read in another thread its like 6-8 inches every miles (please correct me if I am wrong). If you have Noctilucent clouds that can be 75+ miles up, the bendy light would keep them lit up much longer. I am not talking about light running parallel to the clouds I understand it would not light anything up. But since the light has a constant upward arc the clouds would pretty much stay lit all night long.

I love this new bendy light stuff.  It gets FE out of soooo many holes.   As usual, the fact it's based on zero evidence is not important.  -It's up the us non-zetetetists to prove it doesn't exist (which is of course impossible!).

Also, doesn't it break GR?  I mean, to the observer light is more effected by gravitation than everything else.  And when I say more, I mean 10¹⁰ times more. (this is a guess)

I love the new bendy light theory too.


HOLY SHIT.  I just thought of something.  I am going to create the first bendy light flashlight that will shine around corners that you yourself cannot see around.  What a great idea.  Ill make millions.

May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle emitted by the cosmos which is too small to see or detect.

Quote from: Kira-SY on August 27, 2008, 03:53:03 PM

May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle too small to see or detect.

How ironic.  Either gravitons cause gravitation and cause the Earth to be round, or the earth is flat and gravitons bend light. 

Which would you rather believe?

Keep in mind, we do have evidence that all mass/energy attracts mass/energy (Cavendish experiments, gravimetric surveys, etc) and no proof that light bends upward.

Quote from: Kira-SY on August 27, 2008, 03:53:03 PM

May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle too small to see or detect.

Proof? 

Proof?

Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.

This is evidence that light bends upwards.

How ironic.  Either gravitons cause gravitation and cause the Earth to be round, or the earth is flat and gravitons bend light. 

Which would you rather believe?

It's easier to believe that some photons are bending upwards rather than the entire earth upon which we exist bending downwards.

Keep in mind, we do have evidence that all mass/energy attracts mass/energy (Cavendish experiments, gravimetric surveys, etc) and no proof that light bends upward.

Sure there is. Shine a laser beam over a one mile long lake and you'll see that the receiving photons arrive at a higher altitude. That's evidence that light bends upwards.

Quote

Proof?

Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.

This is evidence that light bends upwards.

Aha!  So what about the Rowbotham experiments?  Shouldn't they be affected too?  Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?

Sure there is. Shine a laser beam over a one mile long lake and you'll see that the receiving photons arrive at a higher altitude.

I'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving.  That experiment is also explained by RE.  There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.

However, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.  This suggests that the Earth is curving instead of light bending.  The celestial sphere also suggests the Earth is curving.

Aha!  So what about the Rowbotham experiments?  Shouldn't they be affected too?  Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?

I'm thinking it has something to do with scale and exactly how shallow of a curve the light rays are bending as they proceed through their course. Depending on the particulars Rowbotham's experiments over the six mile stretch of the Bedford Canal may be entirely compatible with the bending-light theory.

I'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving.  That experiment is also explained by RE.  There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.

There is no experiment which suggests that the earth is curving rather than photons curving. All of your experiments are also explained by FE.

However, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.

I walked off of the edge of my chair just now. I didn't see any evidence of universal gravitation between masses. I just the saw the earth accelerate upwards to meet me.

Quote

Aha!  So what about the Rowbotham experiments?  Shouldn't they be affected too?  Were his results affected by refraction, was he lying or simply mistaken?

I'm thinking it has something to do with scale and exactly how shallow of a curve the light rays are bending as they proceed through their course. Depending on the particulars Rowbotham's experiments over the six mile stretch of the Bedford Canal may be entirely compatible with the bending-light theory.

That's doubtful.  Ask Robosteve for his ideas on the matter.

Quote

I'm referring to evidence that light bends instead of the Earth curving.  That experiment is also explained by RE.  There is no evidence which suggests light is bending instead of the Earth curving.

There is no experiment which suggests that the earth is curving rather than photons curving. All of your experiments are also explained by FE.

I disagree.  Look at the heavens.  A round earth requires that stars travel across the sky in perfect circular arcs.  Equatorial mount telescopes take advantage of this fact.  I find that light bending in such a way to make stars appear travel in perfect circular arcs in a giant celestial sphere is too big of coincidence to believe.

In addition, a round earth requires that the sidereal day (the period with which the stars rotate 23 hours 56 minutes) and the solar day (usual 24 hour day) be related by the ratio


That this observed is yet another coincidence that I cannot believe if the Earth was really flat.

Quote

However, there is evidence that universal gravitation exists.

I walked off of the edge of my chair just now. I didn't see any evidence of universal gravitation between masses. I just the saw the earth accelerate upwards to meet me.

See Cavendish experiments and gravimetry.  The existence of universal gravitation strongly suggests the Earth must be round.

May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

Its an FE theory, When they can't answer a question they make up new "laws". Us RE usally end up letting them have it since we feel sorry for them.

Quote from: Kira-SY on August 27, 2008, 03:53:03 PM

May I ask what does bend the light upwards? What force, object or whatever, and the system

The mechanism is a special sub-atomic graviton particle emitted by the cosmos which is too small to see or detect.

I like how Tom jumps in and tosses out a theory but avoids the question... good on him.

Tom was being facetious.  Rather obviously, I thought. 

I disagree.  Look at the heavens.  A round earth requires that stars travel across the sky in perfect circular arcs.  Equatorial mount telescopes take advantage of this fact.  I find that light bending in such a way to make stars appear travel in perfect circular arcs in a giant celestial sphere is too big of coincidence to believe.

When one looks up into the night sky he is looking at stars all around him. Of course it's going to look like a dome.

See Cavendish experiments and gravimetry.  The existence of universal gravitation strongly suggests the Earth must be round.

Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

When one looks up into the night sky he is looking at stars all around him. Of course it's going to look like a dome.

And the stars will travel in perfect circular arcs?  Light bends in such a way that the stars travel in circular arcs.  Do you realize how utterly improbable it is that light happens to bend in a way to make that happen?  And the elevation of the North Star corresponding to one's latitude?  What are the chances light bends like that?  Every star rotates with the same angular velocity?  What are the chances that a swirling gravitationally bound system would do that?

The only reasonable explanation without relying on numerous coincidences is that the Earth is spherical and that it or the heavens are rotating uniformly.

Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

One person who has whackjob views on gravity and no understanding of general relativity speculates on flaws with the Cavendish experiment.  How does that prove anything?  Where is your data?

Quote

I disagree.  Look at the heavens.  A round earth requires that stars travel across the sky in perfect circular arcs.  Equatorial mount telescopes take advantage of this fact.  I find that light bending in such a way to make stars appear travel in perfect circular arcs in a giant celestial sphere is too big of coincidence to believe.

When one looks up into the night sky he is looking at stars all around him. Of course it's going to look like a dome.

Quote

See Cavendish experiments and gravimetry.  The existence of universal gravitation strongly suggests the Earth must be round.

Read this: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

What about the questions this topic asked? are you going to answer it?

And the stars will travel in perfect circular arcs?

I haven't seen evidence that the stars travel in perfect circular arcs.

And the elevation of the North Star corresponding to one's latitude?  What are the chances light bends like that?

Uh, the latitude lines were originally derived from the angle of the North Star at different parts on the earth. 

Every star rotates with the same angular velocity?  What are the chances that a swirling gravitationally bound system would do that?

I haven't seen evidence that the stars all rotate with the same perfect angular velocity.

The only reasonable explanation without relying on numerous coincidences is that the Earth is spherical and that it or the heavens are rotating uniformly.

Nope. The obvious explanation is that you're making a bunch of uncorroborated assumptions and assuming that you are correct without collecting evidence to demonstrate so.

One person who has whackjob views on gravity and no understanding of general relativity speculates on flaws with the Cavendish experiment.  How does that prove anything?  Where is your data?

How do you know that the author has no understanding of general relativity? Did you ask him?

The author gives several references to corroborating works in his chapter.

What about the questions this topic asked? are you going to answer it?

It was already answered on page one.

I understand what you are saying here, but that is not what i pointed out.

These clouds can be several miles long but the curvature of the earth quickly covers them in shade. The light bendy thing would keep them lit up a lot longer.
I don't remember the exact arc of the light but for some reason I think I read in another thread its like 6-8 inches every miles (please correct me if I am wrong). If you have Noctilucent clouds that can be 75+ miles up, the bendy light would keep them lit up much longer. I am not talking about light running parallel to the clouds I understand it would not light anything up. But since the light has a constant upward arc the clouds would pretty much stay lit all night long.

No. When the Sun is far enough away, a parabolic arc with appropriate concavity joining the clouds and the Sun would intersect the surface of the Earth. Therefore, the Earth intercepts the light before it can reach the clouds.

Quote from: spacemanjones on August 27, 2008, 06:19:32 AM

I understand what you are saying here, but that is not what i pointed out.

These clouds can be several miles long but the curvature of the earth quickly covers them in shade. The light bendy thing would keep them lit up a lot longer.
I don't remember the exact arc of the light but for some reason I think I read in another thread its like 6-8 inches every miles (please correct me if I am wrong). If you have Noctilucent clouds that can be 75+ miles up, the bendy light would keep them lit up much longer. I am not talking about light running parallel to the clouds I understand it would not light anything up. But since the light has a constant upward arc the clouds would pretty much stay lit all night long.

No. When the Sun is far enough away, a parabolic arc with appropriate concavity joining the clouds and the Sun would intersect the surface of the Earth. Therefore, the Earth intercepts the light before it can reach the clouds.

Yes, but what about the light that wasn't blocked by earth? the light that just curved enough (one inch) above the surface... that will light the base of any clouds it comes in contact with.

Quick question... what's the curve? how many inches a mile? (light bendy)
If you tell me this I can work out an more accurate drawing of what I am saying.

Quick question... what's the curve? how many inches a mile? (light bendy)
If you tell me this I can work out an more accurate drawing of what I am saying.

Google calculator tells me it is 7.99360592 (inches per mile) per mile, when fed with appropriate data.

Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.
This is evidence that light bends upwards.

Dear Tom Bishop (and Robosteve), maybe you think you’re helping the FET with this, buy you’re not, and here’s why:

1) If the light would really bent as you say, it would make a liar out of Parallax, who stated in his book that, with the help of a good telescope the sunken ship effect is reversed and the whole image restored. If the light would bend, then whatever the zoom one had, it would be impossible to restore the image without getting to a higher point of observation, as it would be also if the Earth would be curved. So you have to decide if you trust Parallax or you choose this weird „bendy light” nonsense.

2) Before making a claim about "bending", a Zetetician should wonder: the light “bends” (upward) relative to what straight line? I mean, what is the definition of „straight”*? If one sees a long row of trees (or lamp posts), how can one decide if they are in a straight line or not? Well, one would look to see if their edge would “align” while standing at one extreme of the row, such as no tree would have the edge in front or behind the line of vision. And the line of  vision is, obviously, a ray of light that is getting to the eye. This is true not only for the vertical, but for whatever oblique direction or even the horizontal.

So, if the line of vision is the straight line, and the distance between such an horizontal line and the surface of the earth would increase (as you mistakenly claim) then it would be not the light “bending upwards” (the line is straight!) but the surface bending downwards… And those ignorant RErs would be right about the curved shape of the Earth (luckily they aren’t).

In conclusion, I hope the RErs, or other more knowledgeable FErs would soon prove that this nonsense about the “bending light” in the proximity of the Earth is false and whatever formula Robosteve would give here to be shown wrong, as it would obviously be.

* I sure hope that you don’t suggest the surface of the Earth to be the “straight” line here, because that would be a circular definition: “The Earth is flat because the Earth is the standard of straight”… You would make the FET sound illogical and utterly ridiculous. Please stop already.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 27, 2008, 04:46:34 PM

Shine a laser beam exactly one foot in altitude over a mile-long lake or canal. At the receiving end the beam should arrive higher than one foot in altitude.
This is evidence that light bends upwards.

Dear Tom Bishop (and Robosteve), maybe you think you’re helping the FET with this, buy you’re not, and here’s why:

1) If the light would really bent as you say, it would make a liar out of Parallax, who stated in his book that, with the help of a good telescope the sunken ship effect is reversed and the whole image restored. If the light would bend, then whatever the zoom one had, it would be impossible to restore the image without getting to a higher point of observation, as it would be also if the Earth would be curved. So you have to decide if you trust Parallax or you choose this weird „bendy light” nonsense.

2) Before making a claim about "bending", a Zetetician should wonder: the light “bends” (upward) relative to what straight line? I mean, what is the definition of „straight”*? If one sees a long row of trees (or lamp posts), how can one decide if they are in a straight line or not? Well, one would look to see if their edge would “align” while standing at one extreme of the row, such as no tree would have the edge in front or behind the line of vision. And the line of  vision is, obviously, a ray of light that is getting to the eye. This is true not only for the vertical, but for whatever oblique direction or even the horizontal.

So, if the line of vision is the straight line, and the distance between such an horizontal line and the surface of the earth would increase (as you mistakenly claim) then it would be not the light “bending upwards” (the line is straight!) but the surface bending downwards… And those ignorant RErs would be right about the curved shape of the Earth (luckily they aren’t).

In conclusion, I hope the RErs, or other more knowledgeable FErs would soon prove that this nonsense about the “bending light” in the proximity of the Earth is false and whatever formula Robosteve would give here to be shown wrong, as it would obviously be.

* I sure hope that you don’t suggest the surface of the Earth to be the “straight” line here, because that would be a circular definition: “The Earth is flat because the Earth is the standard of straight”… You would make the FET sound illogical and utterly ridiculous. Please stop already.

A straight line may be defined as the path taken by an inertial observer; or, more succinctly, a geodesic in spacetime.