Cloud question and clarification

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

And the light rays don't follow such paths?

Quote from: Robosteve on August 28, 2008, 03:40:11 AM

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

And the light rays don't follow such paths?

No, they don't.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 03:43:49 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 28, 2008, 03:40:11 AM

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

And the light rays don't follow such paths?

No, they don't.

What is it that deviates them from the geodesic?

Quote from: spacemanjones on August 27, 2008, 10:33:34 PM

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.

Ok thanks that is what i was looking for.

What is it that deviates them from the geodesic?

A force perpendicular to their direction of motion, caused by Dark Energy.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 04:31:52 AM

What is it that deviates them from the geodesic?

A force perpendicular to their direction of motion, caused by Dark Energy.

I see...

Is there anything able to follow a horizontal straight line on Earth, or is this Dark Energy affecting averything?

I see...

Is there anything able to follow a horizontal straight line on Earth, or is this Dark Energy affecting averything?

Dark Energy affects both ordinary matter and electromagnetic radiation, albeit in very different ways. When it strikes matter, it is comparable to a wind, in that it causes the Earth to accelerate upwards, but does not directly affect us - we feel it indirectly as the Earth accelerates up towards us. I have already described its effect on electromagnetic radiation. To answer your question more directly, anything that is not electromagnetic radiation will follow a geodesic through spacetime if set moving horizontally in a vacuum on Earth.

edit:

To answer your question more directly, anything that is not electromagnetic radiation will follow a geodesic through spacetime if set moving horizontally in a vacuum on Earth.

But that trajectory depends on the horizontal velocity and initial altitude (it is seen as different parabola from the earth's reference frame)  ... Are they all "straight"?

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 04:37:40 AM

I see...

Is there anything able to follow a horizontal straight line on Earth, or is this Dark Energy affecting averything?

Dark Energy affects both ordinary matter and electromagnetic radiation, albeit in very different ways. When it strikes matter, it is comparable to a wind, in that it causes the Earth to accelerate upwards, but does not directly affect us - we feel it indirectly as the Earth accelerates up towards us. I have already described its effect on electromagnetic radiation. To answer your question more directly, anything that is not electromagnetic radiation will follow a geodesic through spacetime if set moving horizontally in a vacuum on Earth.

Seems really bold to state properties of DE, and the way it behaves and interacts with our Earth. You don't even know if it is real... I don't know either, I am not going to say it is or isn't.

   One thing is for sure you don't know the properties of DE or how it behaves, so in this case DE is a scapegoat more than a valid theory.

But that trajectory depends on the horizontal velocity and initial altitude (it is seen as different parabola from the earth's reference frame)  ... Are they all "straight"?

Yes. It is the Earth that is not moving along a geodesic, not freely falling objects.

Seems really bold to state properties of DE, and the way it behaves and interacts with our Earth. You don't even know if it is real... I don't know either, I am not going to say it does or doesn't.

   One thing is for sure you don't know the properties of DE or how it behaves, so in this case DE is a scapegoat more than a valid theory.

I am describing it as I suppose it to work.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 05:10:11 AM

But that trajectory depends on the horizontal velocity and initial altitude (it is seen as different parabola from the earth's reference frame)  ... Are they all "straight"?

Yes.

Well, if the trajectories of all objects set in motion horizontally in vacuum are "straight" whatever their horizontal velocity, it follows that the surface of the Earth is not straight, as it is not parallel to those trajectories (they intersect in many cases). So your "bendy light" hypothesis, that needs a definition of straight related to geodesics that are not followed by light, just proved the Earth not to be flat. Are you aware of this? Will you let this hypothesis go now?

It is the Earth that is not moving along a geodesic, not freely falling objects.

It is obvious that the Earth itself is not moving along a geodesic, as it is accelerating.

Well, if the trajectories of all objects set in motion horizontally in vacuum are "straight" whatever their horizontal velocity, it follows that the surface of the Earth is not straight, as it is not parallel to those trajectories (they intersect in many cases). So your "bendy light" hypothesis, that needs a definition of straight related to geodesics that are not followed by light, just proved the Earth not to be flat. Are you aware of this? Will you let this hypothesis go now?

The surface of the Earth is flat. It is also accelerating, and therefore not moving along a geodesic, which for the purposes of this discussion we are defining to be a straight line. So, in four-dimensional spacetime, a point on the three-dimensional surface of the Earth is not straight.

It is obvious that the Earth itself is not moving along a geodesic, as it is accelerating.

Yes.

The surface of the Earth is flat.

I know that.

It is also accelerating, and therefore not moving along a geodesic, which for the purposes of this discussion we are defining to be a straight line.

I understand this, although the definition of "straight" is faulty, see below.

So, in four-dimensional spacetime, a point on the three-dimensional surface of the Earth is not straight.

I don't understand how can a point be "straight" or not, whatever the number of dimensions. A point is just a point.

And, are you saying that, according to you, the Earth is flat only "in four dimensional space-time", and not flat in the three dimensional space (a section of simultaneity in the 4D space-time)?

And please note that I'm not concerned with the movement of the Earth along geodesics, but with the fact that if we were to take your definition of "straight", then the surface of the Earth would no longer be flat! It's the trajectory of other bodies (thrown horizontally in vacuum), intersecting with the surface of the Earth that shows it. Is that so hard to understand?

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

Please read this critique (by a round earth advocate), and tell me how confident you are in the Cavendish values of G. It's mind numbing that this farce has been repeated over and again in places of supposed higher learning.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

As usual, Tom Bishop is quoting any rubbish he finds in the Internet, without even reading it first. The following comments are my comments made the first time I saw this garbage, and they are not even the only ones: (other people in this forum also spent time debunking this "article")

There are several strange claims in this paper, but when you get to this one you can understand the true quality of it:

Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That’s a thirty percent error.

For the man who knows that every other scientist in the field is incompetent, you would at least expect that he would know  how to calculate errors! If you were going to multiply these two errors, that would give you 0.03 times 0.1, since percentages are just a convenient way to work with fractions. And the result would be 0.003, which is less than any one of the original errors. Multiplication of errors is just senseless.

The other mistakes claimed to be made by Cavendish and others are so simple to solve that anyone could do the experiment without the errors. Someone would already have won the Nobel prize just by doing the experiment in a spherical vacuumn chamber.

Internet is full of wackos that "know" that everyone else is deluded.

I don't understand how can a point be "straight" or not, whatever the number of dimensions. A point is just a point.

A point in three-dimensional space is a function in four-dimensional spacetime.

And, are you saying that, according to you, the Earth is flat only "in four dimensional space-time", and not flat in the three dimensional space (a section of simultaneity in the 4D space-time)?

No, I am saying the reverse. Of course, the Earth's surface in four-dimensional spacetime is really a four-dimensional object, so "flat" cannot apply to it in any case.

And please note that I'm not concerned with the movement of the Earth along geodesics, but with the fact that if we were to take your definition of "straight", then the surface of the Earth would no longer be flat! It's the trajectory of other bodies (thrown horizontally in vacuum), intersecting with the surface of the Earth that shows it. Is that so hard to understand?

My definition of "straight" is intended only to apply in the context of four-dimensional spacetime. I have already stated that the qualification "flat" is not applicable to the Earth in this context.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 08:26:56 AM

I don't understand how can a point be "straight" or not, whatever the number of dimensions. A point is just a point.

A point in three-dimensional space is a function in four-dimensional spacetime.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 08:26:56 AM

And, are you saying that, according to you, the Earth is flat only "in four dimensional space-time", and not flat in the three dimensional space (a section of simultaneity in the 4D space-time)?

No, I am saying the reverse. Of course, the Earth's surface in four-dimensional spacetime is really a four-dimensional object, so "flat" cannot apply to it in any case.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 08:26:56 AM

And please note that I'm not concerned with the movement of the Earth along geodesics, but with the fact that if we were to take your definition of "straight", then the surface of the Earth would no longer be flat! It's the trajectory of other bodies (thrown horizontally in vacuum), intersecting with the surface of the Earth that shows it. Is that so hard to understand?

My definition of "straight" is intended only to apply in the context of four-dimensional spacetime. I have already stated that the qualification "flat" is not applicable to the Earth in this context.

I quit, you two can go at it.

A point in three-dimensional space is a function in four-dimensional spacetime.

That’s nice, but as long as you don’t specify in what context you speak, your assertion is meaningless (and therefore useless). Stop talking in contexts other than the one where we try to establish the truth of Earth’s flat shape.

No, I am saying the reverse. Of course, the Earth's surface in four-dimensional spacetime is really a four-dimensional object, so "flat" cannot apply to it in any case.

So, stop talking about four dimensions and return to the surface of the Earth where we need to show it is flat.

My definition of "straight" is intended only to apply in the context of four-dimensional spacetime. I have already stated that the qualification "flat" is not applicable to the Earth in this context.

Ok, by what definition in three dimensions of "straight", is the light, in your hypothesis, “bending upwards”?

As a note: please read more carefully my questions. If you go back you’ll see that I started by asking for a way to determine what a “straight” (horizontal, no less) line is, relative to the surface of the Earth (and the "bent light" of Tom Bishop's claim), and not about your spectacular knowledge of four dimensions.

Ok, by what definition in three dimensions of "straight", is the light, in your hypothesis, “bending upwards”?

As a note: please read more carefully my questions. If you go back you’ll see that I started by asking for a way to determine what a “straight” (horizontal, no less) line is, relative to the surface of the Earth (and the "bent light" of Tom Bishop's claim), and not about your spectacular knowledge of four dimensions.

It is not possible to describe the path of light in three dimensions, as a photon is necessarily a four-dimensional construct.

I like to describe it as a warticle.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 10:12:11 AM

Ok, by what definition in three dimensions of "straight", is the light, in your hypothesis, “bending upwards”?

As a note: please read more carefully my questions. If you go back you’ll see that I started by asking for a way to determine what a “straight” (horizontal, no less) line is, relative to the surface of the Earth (and the "bent light" of Tom Bishop's claim), and not about your spectacular knowledge of four dimensions.

It is not possible to describe the path of light in three dimensions, as a photon is necessarily a four-dimensional construct.

I'm not seeing what you are getting at.  Please explain. 

It is not possible to describe the path of light in three dimensions, as a photon is necessarily a four-dimensional construct.

Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?

And let's get back to the "straight" lines, that we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, in three dimensions. If light can't help us, what can? Are you telling me there is no way to "obtain" (as in, observe) a straight line in three dimensions, or what?

Are you ready to let go now the ridiculous notion of "bending light" ? I mean, if in order to talk about your hypothesis of "bending" you need to go in four dimensions, where "straight" and "flat" are unusable for our measuring the Earths surface, why bother? If the "deflection" can't be measured (in three dimensions) why invent it? (In order to be able to measure it, we need something to measure it against!) Plus, there is no use for it, as Parallax already showed with his book that there is no bending (remember, a powerful zoom would restore the images of "sunken" ships, which is proof that the light is not bending at all).

I'm not seeing what you are getting at.  Please explain. 

An electromagnetic wave cannot exist in only three dimensions.

Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?

I did not say that.

And let's get back to the "straight" lines, that we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, in three dimensions. If light can't help us, what can? Are you telling me there is no way to "obtain" (as in, observe) a straight line in three dimensions, or what?

There most certainly is. A straight line in three dimensions is a geodesic in three-dimensional space.

Are you ready to let go now the ridiculous notion of "bending light" ?

Not until you have shown why it is ridiculous. Thus far, you have only managed to confuse a particle travelling in a straight line with a flat surface, a difference I would expect a ten year old to be able to describe.

I mean, if in order to talk about your hypothesis of "bending" you need to go in four dimensions, where "straight" and "flat" are unusable for our measuring the Earths surface, why bother?

Because it explains observed phenomena.

If the "deflection" can't be measured (in three dimensions) why invent it? (In order to be able to measure it, we need something to measure it against!) Plus, there is no use for it, as Parallax already showed with his book that there is no bending (remember, a powerful zoom would restore the images of "sunken" ships, which is proof that the light is not bending at all).

You could not have typed that post in a three dimensional world, so why post it? Plus, I don't care what Parallax showed, light that bends explains observed phenomena much better than light that travels in a straight line.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 11:41:38 PM

Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?

I did not say that.

What about this?

Quote from: spacemanjones on August 27, 2008, 10:33:34 PM

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.

Change 7 to 8 in my above post, same difference. The ridiculous thing is the bending, the exact value you propose (calculate?) is irrelevant (as long as it is not 0).

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 11:41:38 PM

And let's get back to the "straight" lines, that we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, in three dimensions. If light can't help us, what can? Are you telling me there is no way to "obtain" (as in, observe) a straight line in three dimensions, or what?

There most certainly is. A straight line in three dimensions is a geodesic in three-dimensional space.

Great. We're getting closer to the answer I seek. Now, tell me what is able to follow a horizontal geodesic in three dimensional space. How can we know what a straight horizontal line is? That's what I'm asking.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 11:41:38 PM

Are you ready to let go now the ridiculous notion of "bending light" ?

Not until you have shown why it is ridiculous. 

Ok, you might  turn it a matter of opinion. I told you it is ridiculous because it negates de FET, making a liar out of Parallax, who set the foundations of it. Or are you now an authority in FET higher than Parallax himself? Do you see the ridicule of your position? If you don't see it, then whatever. You should not lose sleep over my opinion about your ridicule hypothesis.

Thus far, you have only managed to confuse a particle travelling in a straight line with a flat surface, a difference I would expect a ten year old to be able to describe.

Oh, so now you talk about 10 years olds. Very helpful.

I'm not confusing any particle with a surface. I ask for a way to compare the "bendy light" to a horizontal straight line. That’s what you need in order to measure a 7 or 8 inches or whatever deviation "up". And that's what we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, incidentally.

Maybe you should remember that "bent" only has a meaning if you define somewhere "straight". That's what I'm asking, else, your measurement/calculation is meaningless.

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 11:41:38 PM

If the "deflection" can't be measured (in three dimensions) why invent it? (In order to be able to measure it, we need something to measure it against!) Plus, there is no use for it, as Parallax already showed with his book that there is no bending (remember, a powerful zoom would restore the images of "sunken" ships, which is proof that the light is not bending at all).

You could not have typed that post in a three dimensional world, so why post it?

Maybe you think your response is funny, or even helpful, but I don't.

Plus, I don't care what Parallax showed, light that bends explains observed phenomena much better than light that travels in a straight line.

Here is where I don't get how is it possible that you are let by the FErs of this forum to call Parallax a liar with your hypothesis of "bending" light. You think you're helping the FET but you're trashing Parallax's work and with it the FET. Sadly. 

Quote from: Robosteve on August 29, 2008, 04:02:10 AM

Quote from: still learning on August 28, 2008, 11:41:38 PM

Well, you're the one who said that the light "bends up" 7 inches every mile. How many dimensions is this description made for?

I did not say that.

What about this?

Quote from: Robosteve on August 28, 2008, 01:02:10 AM

Quote from: spacemanjones on August 27, 2008, 10:33:34 PM

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.

Change 7 to 8 in my above post, same difference. The ridiculous thing is the bending, the exact value you propose (calculate?) is irrelevant (as long as it is not 0).

Inches per mile per mile is not the same thing as inches per mile.

Great. We're getting closer to the answer I seek. Now, tell me what is able to follow a horizontal geodesic in three dimensional space. How can we know what a straight horizontal line is? That's what I'm asking.

Nothing is able to follow such a path, as the word "follow" implies the presence of a temporal dimension.

Ok, you might  turn it a matter of opinion. I told you it is ridiculous because it negates de FET, making a liar out of Parallax, who set the foundations of it. Or are you now an authority in FET higher than Parallax himself? Do you see the ridicule of your position? If you don't see it, then whatever. You should not lose sleep over my opinion about your ridicule hypothesis.

Trust me, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Also, "ridicule" is a verb.

Oh, so now you talk about 10 years olds. Very helpful.

I'm not confusing any particle with a surface. I ask for a way to compare the "bendy light" to a horizontal straight line. That’s what you need in order to measure a 7 or 8 inches or whatever deviation "up". And that's what we need in order to show that the surface of the Earth is flat, incidentally.

Maybe you should remember that "bent" only has a meaning if you define somewhere "straight". That's what I'm asking, else, your measurement/calculation is meaningless.

I already told you, the path light follows may be compared to a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. My calculation of 8 inches per mile per mile, however, represents an appropriation of the phenomenon to our own non-inertial frame of reference, such that it is relative to the surface of the Earth.

Maybe you think your response is funny, or even helpful, but I don't.

I am simply pointing out the stupidity in your argument.

Here is where I don't get how is it possible that you are let by the FErs of this forum to call Parallax a liar with your hypothesis of "bending" light. You think you're helping the FET but you're trashing Parallax's work and with it the FET. Sadly. 

No, I am attempting to improve upon the FE model. Should Einstein not have been allowed to question the accepted Newtonian physics of his time?

Inches per mile per mile is not the same thing as inches per mile.

I will repeat: it's not the value itself (as long as it is not zero), but the bending that is ridiculous. And I'd appreciate it if you could explain what it means for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Since when is the deviation measured in such a unit? And if what you calculated is not the deviation, than what value do you find for the deviation?

Nothing is able to follow such a path, as the word "follow" implies the presence of a temporal dimension.

I hope you're not being intentionally dense about this...
In order to visualize a trajectory, without needing the time dimension, you could do the following: Take a number of objects and make them follow the said trajectory, at short (as short as possible) intervals of time. Then, when enough of them are “on the way”, you take a picture and voila! You can see it. So don't give me that excuse. Just tell me what do I need to do to have something follow a horizontal straight line. Please.

Also, "ridicule" is a verb.

ok.

I already told you, the path light follows may be compared to a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. My calculation of 8 inches per mile per mile, however, represents an appropriation of the phenomenon to our own non-inertial frame of reference, such that it is relative to the surface of the Earth.

And my question for you is: compared to what "straight line" did you evaluate the "bending"? Again, don’t tell me it’s a line drown on the surface of the Earth, because that is a circular definition for Earth’s flatness. (Which renders the FET nonsensical and useless. Not helping!)

No, I am attempting to improve upon the FE model.

Unfortunately you’re not. 

Should Einstein not have been allowed to question the accepted Newtonian physics of his time?

I'll try not to make any comment on your comparing yourself with Einstein, while comparing Parallax with Newton. 

My problem with your hypothesis as related to Parallax's work is the first point of my first post in this thread, to which nobody bothered to answer. And no, ignoring or avoiding it is not an answer.

Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.

If what Parallax observed can be reduced to a particular case (a limit) of your theory, then you have a chance of improving the FET. Can you show that this is the case? Try and you’ll see that you can’t.

Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.

Wouldn't that depend how far away the sunken ship was from the observers who claim to have restored the hull with a telescope?

With the distances we're talking about here it's conceivable that a perspective effect could take place before light had a chance to bend upwards by any significant degree.

With the distances we're talking about here it's conceivable that a perspective effect could take place before light had a chance to bend upwards by any significant degree.

So you mean you can catch light by surprise then? Before it has a chance to bend - good theory

Quote from: Robosteve on August 29, 2008, 05:06:31 AM

Inches per mile per mile is not the same thing as inches per mile.

I will repeat: it's not the value itself (as long as it is not zero), but the bending that is ridiculous. And I'd appreciate it if you could explain what it means for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Since when is the deviation measured in such a unit? And if what you calculated is not the deviation, than what value do you find for the deviation?

The deviation would be equal to ₀∬^x₁ 8 inches per mile per mile * dx², where x₁ is the horizontal distance travelled by the ray of light.

Quote

Nothing is able to follow such a path, as the word "follow" implies the presence of a temporal dimension.

I hope you're not being intentionally dense about this...
In order to visualize a trajectory, without needing the time dimension, you could do the following: Take a number of objects and make them follow the said trajectory, at short (as short as possible) intervals of time. Then, when enough of them are “on the way”, you take a picture and voila! You can see it. So don't give me that excuse. Just tell me what do I need to do to have something follow a horizontal straight line. Please.

What you would be seeing in that case is not a geodesic in three-dimensional space, but a three-dimensional view of a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. You cannot have something follow a path in three-dimensional space without a temporal dimension, and therefore you cannot make something follow a geodesic in space, only in spacetime.

Quote

I already told you, the path light follows may be compared to a geodesic in four-dimensional spacetime. My calculation of 8 inches per mile per mile, however, represents an appropriation of the phenomenon to our own non-inertial frame of reference, such that it is relative to the surface of the Earth.

And my question for you is: compared to what "straight line" did you evaluate the "bending"? Again, don’t tell me it’s a line drown on the surface of the Earth, because that is a circular definition for Earth’s flatness. (Which renders the FET nonsensical and useless. Not helping!)

Assuming the Earth is flat and light does bend in the way I have supposed, then the calculation of "8 inches per mile per mile" is relative to the surface of the Earth. Simply add the Earth's acceleration of 9.8 m s^-2 to this figure to get the acceleration of light relative to a geodesic in spacetime.

Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.

No, it is not.

If what Parallax observed can be reduced to a particular case (a limit) of your theory, then you have a chance of improving the FET. Can you show that this is the case? Try and you’ll see that you can’t.

There are no special cases. I'm not going to trust what Parallax might have seen over my own rational thought.

Quote from: still learning on August 29, 2008, 01:22:04 PM

Here is the direct question: Do you claim that your "bendy light" is compatible with the direct observation made by Parallax about restoring the sunken ship image with a powerful zoom? This is not a detail on which you could "approximate" better, it is a fundamental observation. Your disregarding that is what hurts the FET.

No, it is not.

Steve, does this mean that you believe that because of bendy light, the sunken hull of a ship cannot be restored, no matter how powerful the magnification?  If so, that directly contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of FET.

Steve, does this mean that you believe that because of bendy light, the sunken hull of a ship cannot be restored, no matter how powerful the magnification?  If so, that directly contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of FET.

Perhaps over short distances, it can. Certainly nothing more than ten kilometres or so.