Cloud question and clarification

Quote

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?

I'd say that the observations made by Parallax were at least one mile away. For shorter distances, the perspective effect he talked about is practically inexistent. Do you disagree?

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.

You said that from a mile away, the bending of light is noticeable (see the first quote I used in this thread).

Now, what you're saying is that the ship's "sinking", from a distance more than a mile away, is a combination of the two causes: perspective and bending of light.

But if the bending of light is noticeable, it means that there are rays that won't get to the observer because of it, which means that there is at least a part of the "sunken" effect that won't be restored by any zoom.

Which means that you're saying that Parallax was a liar, which makes you a foe of the FET as revealed by Parallax, a founder of FES, no less! Or you could admit you were wrong with this hypothesis and let it go.

When Robosteve/ObL will give us some calculated values of "bending" I'll show you how ridiculous your hypothesis is with numbers, but it seems that we'll have to wait a while for that.

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

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.

You still didn't explain (supposing you are able to) what does it mean for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Can you explain it or not?

As for the formula, it is very ... useless, since you say nothing about the double integral, and what it means. How do you calculate a double integral using one dimension (from 0 to x1) ? Are you joking here or what? Could you at least show here how did you derive such a (ridiculous) formula?

And since you are supposed to know how to use it, could you tell me what is the value you obtain for a horizontal distance of, say, 3 miles? It would be nice to show you (and Tom Bishop) how ridiculous your hypothesis is with some numbers, as you don't seem to get it only qualitatively...

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

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.

Ok, so you're being dense.
In order to compare the surface of the Earth with a "straight" line (in three dimensions, where the "flatness" has a useful meaning for us), we need useful a definition of "straight" lines (in three dimensions). All your talk about "geodesics" as "straight lines in four dimensions" is therefore useless for this. I proposed a way to visualize the three spatial dimensions of such a geodesic, such as not to need the time as a fourth dimension, but you decided to ignore it.

It's not the "following" that interests me (that needs "time"), but the visualizing of a straight line in three spatial dimensions. So I reiterate my question: Does your "theory" contain a useful definition of "straight lines" in three dimensions? Relative to what did you evaluate the "bending"? (That should be obvious once you show me how you have derived the double integral formula.)

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

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.

-- emphasis added --

But this is circular logic! You can't use the assumption of a flat Earth in order to calculate the bending of the light, which then would explain why we see what we see on our flat Earth! That would amount to "the Earth is flat because we started with the assumption that the Earth is flat", which is not what Zetetics is about. So that's how you're hurting FET, even if you don't get it. If you want to deduce from observations the true form of the Earth, you can't use the flatness as an axiom of your theory!

BTW, by constructing this ridiculous hypothesis about "bending light" , you're implicitly assuming that the observations agree with a "curved" shape of the Earth, which they don't! The restoring of the "sinked ship" image is not possible on the supposedly RE!

Without an independent definition of "straight", all your hypothesis does is make the flatness indistinguishable (by direct observation) from the "curvature" of the RET. That means throwing away one of the most powerful arguments revealed by Parallax, who showed that the zoom does restore the "sinked ship" effect, which means that we CAN observe (with adequate optical instruments) the fact that the Earth is flat! That is why so many people try to discredit Parallax, because his argument is so powerful.

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.

Ok, so at least you admit the incompatibility. It seems that Tom Bishop still doesn't see it...

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

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.

Unfortunately, your "rational thought" is circular and therefore useless. Plus, you ignore all the hard zetetic work done by Parallax, with a hypothesis based on circular definitions ... That's exactly what Parallax wanted to avoid, the mistakes of all the "scientists" who started with their conclusions in order to "prove" them correct. And that's what you are doing.

Is your true intention to discredit the FET? Well, all you're doing is revealing the fallacies you personally call "rational thought".

Quote from: markjo on August 30, 2008, 11:09:26 AM

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.

Well, it seems that we need to start using exact numbers, because Tom Bishop said that the effect of "bending light" is already noticeable from no more than one mile! So, please do the calculation for, say, 3 miles, to begin the precise evaluation of the ridiculousness of this hypothesis.

You still didn't explain (supposing you are able to) what does it mean for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Can you explain it or not?

I should have thought that obvious.

As for the formula, it is very ... useless, since you say nothing about the double integral, and what it means. How do you calculate a double integral using one dimension (from 0 to x1) ? Are you joking here or what? Could you at least show here how did you derive such a (ridiculous) formula?

I was unfamiliar with the notation used with double integrals, and so made an educated guess. The vertical distance (in inches) by which the light is bent is given by 4x², where x is the horizontal distance travelled in miles.

And since you are supposed to know how to use it, could you tell me what is the value you obtain for a horizontal distance of, say, 3 miles? It would be nice to show you (and Tom Bishop) how ridiculous your hypothesis is with some numbers, as you don't seem to get it only qualitatively...

Over three miles, light will deviate upwards by 36 inches.

Ok, so you're being dense.
In order to compare the surface of the Earth with a "straight" line (in three dimensions, where the "flatness" has a useful meaning for us), we need useful a definition of "straight" lines (in three dimensions). All your talk about "geodesics" as "straight lines in four dimensions" is therefore useless for this. I proposed a way to visualize the three spatial dimensions of such a geodesic, such as not to need the time as a fourth dimension, but you decided to ignore it.

It's not the "following" that interests me (that needs "time"), but the visualizing of a straight line in three spatial dimensions. So I reiterate my question: Does your "theory" contain a useful definition of "straight lines" in three dimensions? Relative to what did you evaluate the "bending"? (That should be obvious once you show me how you have derived the double integral formula.)

"8 inches per mile per mile" is relative to the surface of the Earth, assuming that it is a horizontal plane. This is not an unreasonable assumption to make in the context of these calculations, as this hypothesis only applies to FET.

But this is circular logic! You can't use the assumption of a flat Earth in order to calculate the bending of the light, which then would explain why we see what we see on our flat Earth! That would amount to "the Earth is flat because we started with the assumption that the Earth is flat", which is not what Zetetics is about. So that's how you're hurting FET, even if you don't get it. If you want to deduce from observations the true form of the Earth, you can't use the flatness as an axiom of your theory!

How else do you propose I calculate how far light should bend over a given horizontal distance?

BTW, by constructing this ridiculous hypothesis about "bending light" , you're implicitly assuming that the observations agree with a "curved" shape of the Earth, which they don't! The restoring of the "sinked ship" image is not possible on the supposedly RE!

I know.

Without an independent definition of "straight", all your hypothesis does is make the flatness indistinguishable (by direct observation) from the "curvature" of the RET. That means throwing away one of the most powerful arguments revealed by Parallax, who showed that the zoom does restore the "sinked ship" effect, which means that we CAN observe (with adequate optical instruments) the fact that the Earth is flat! That is why so many people try to discredit Parallax, because his argument is so powerful.

I see the hypothesis of bending light as an alternative to the work you are referencing, not an extension of it.

Unfortunately, your "rational thought" is circular and therefore useless. Plus, you ignore all the hard zetetic work done by Parallax, with a hypothesis based on circular definitions ... That's exactly what Parallax wanted to avoid, the mistakes of all the "scientists" who started with their conclusions in order to "prove" them correct. And that's what you are doing.

No it isn't.

Is your true intention to discredit the FET? Well, all you're doing is revealing the fallacies you personally call "rational thought".

No.

Well, it seems that we need to start using exact numbers, because Tom Bishop said that the effect of "bending light" is already noticeable from no more than one mile! So, please do the calculation for, say, 3 miles, to begin the precise evaluation of the ridiculousness of this hypothesis.

Over three miles horizontally, light will deviate vertically by 36 inches.

Quote from: still learning on September 01, 2008, 04:02:49 AM

You still didn't explain (supposing you are able to) what does it mean for a line to be bent "8 inches per mile per mile". Can you explain it or not?

I should have thought that obvious.

I'm not familiar with this kind of measurement: "...per mile per mile". What does it mean? Is that the same thing as "...per miles squared"? My limited knowledge of English may be the cause of this unclear point...

Quote from: still learning on September 01, 2008, 04:02:49 AM

As for the formula, it is very ... useless, since you say nothing about the double integral, and what it means. How do you calculate a double integral using one dimension (from 0 to x1) ? Are you joking here or what? Could you at least show here how did you derive such a (ridiculous) formula?

I was unfamiliar with the notation used with double integrals, and so made an educated guess. The vertical distance (in inches) by which the light is bent is given by 4x², where x is the horizontal distance travelled in miles and α is the smallest angle between the light ray and a horizontal plane at its origin.

I'm sorry that you were unfamiliar with the notation involved there. I hope you've educated yourself on the subject, in the meanwhile. If you don't express yourself correctly then it's a poor chance for me to understand what you really want to say.
Now, for the new formula, there must be something missing because the angle "α" doesn't appear in it, but you make a comment about it. Can you verify it and give the complete form?

Quote from: still learning on September 01, 2008, 04:02:49 AM

And since you are supposed to know how to use it, could you tell me what is the value you obtain for a horizontal distance of, say, 3 miles? It would be nice to show you (and Tom Bishop) how ridiculous your hypothesis is with some numbers, as you don't seem to get it only qualitatively...

Over three miles, light will deviate upwards by 36 inches.

Thanks. If I understood this correctly, for 10 miles this would give 400 inches, right?

Quote from: still learning on September 01, 2008, 04:02:49 AM

BTW, by constructing this ridiculous hypothesis about "bending light" , you're implicitly assuming that the observations agree with a "curved" shape of the Earth, which they don't! The restoring of the "sinked ship" image is not possible on the supposedly RE!

I know.

Quote from: still learning on September 01, 2008, 04:02:49 AM

Without an independent definition of "straight", all your hypothesis does is make the flatness indistinguishable (by direct observation) from the "curvature" of the RET. That means throwing away one of the most powerful arguments revealed by Parallax, who showed that the zoom does restore the "sinked ship" effect, which means that we CAN observe (with adequate optical instruments) the fact that the Earth is flat! That is why so many people try to discredit Parallax, because his argument is so powerful.

I see the hypothesis of bending light as an alternative to the work you are referencing, not an extension of it.

A valuable/(non ridiculous) alternative would be one that wouldn't hurt the FET, that is, one that would be compatible with it. You should remember that the FET is first and foremost a zetetic endeavor, based on observations! Given that the observations with telescopes as described by Parallax don't fit with the RE, they don't fit with your hypothesis either! If only you could understand that ...

I'm not familiar with this kind of measurement: "...per mile per mile". What does it mean? Is that the same thing as "...per miles squared"? My limited knowledge of English may be the cause of this unclear point...

It is an acceleration of sorts. For every mile the light travels, its gradient increases by 8 inches per mile.

I'm sorry that you were unfamiliar with the notation involved there. I hope you've educated yourself on the subject, in the meanwhile. If you don't express yourself correctly then it's a poor chance for me to understand what you really want to say.
Now, for the new formula, there must be something missing because the angle "α" doesn't appear in it, but you make a comment about it. Can you verify it and give the complete form?

Sorry, I had given the incorrect expression which involved an angle. When I later edited it out, I forgot to edit out the definition of α.

Thanks. If I understood this correctly, for 10 miles this would give 400 inches, right?

Yes.

A valuable/(non ridiculous) alternative would be one that wouldn't hurt the FET, that is, one that would be compatible with it. You should remember that the FET is first and foremost a zetetic endeavor, based on observations! Given that the observations with telescopes as described by Parallax don't fit with the RE, they don't fit with your hypothesis either! If only you could understand that ...

All I am doing is broadening its scope - creating a derivative work, if you will. This can only strengthen it because in the event that one branch of FET is shown to be wrong, there will be others that may survive.

Quote from: still learning on September 02, 2008, 08:17:49 AM

I'm not familiar with this kind of measurement: "...per mile per mile". What does it mean? Is that the same thing as "...per miles squared"? My limited knowledge of English may be the cause of this unclear point...

It is an acceleration of sorts. For every mile the light travels, its gradient increases by 8 inches per mile.

Quote from: still learning on September 02, 2008, 08:17:49 AM

Thanks. If I understood this correctly, for 10 miles this would give 400 inches, right?

Yes.

Hmmm... Applying it for one mile then, the result is 4 inches. Yet you just said that for one mile the gradient increases by 8 inches per mile. So this "gradient" is not the deviation. It might help if you'd tell me what is the value of this "gradient" (or its increase ) for 3 miles (or for 10 miles), so I can compare it with the 36 inches (or 400, respectively) of the deviation.

All I am doing is broadening its scope - creating a derivative work, if you will. This can only strengthen it because in the event that one branch of FET is shown to be wrong, there will be others that may survive.

Well, maybe it's useless to talk epistemology with you. You don't care for self/internal consistency. You think that having a theory where one can explain, simultaneously a thing and it's negative (the possibility of the restoring the sunken ships' image in this case) is a good thing. A broadening of sorts. 

Well, my point is that such a theory, being internally inconsistent, is laughable and has no real value. Therefore, FET has a lot more value without your hypothesis than while including it. That's why I intervened in this discussion, to warn you that you are hurting FET and not helping.

But hey, you declare that you want to help FET, therefore apparently you can say here whatever you want, and the FErs won't bother you. If I'm still learning and I see your error (in promoting this hypothesis), but the FErs who know more don't (or can't or won't), maybe I'm at fault ...

I'm sorry, but I still think your hypothesis is ridiculous.

Hmmm... Applying it for one mile then, the result is 4 inches. Yet you just said that for one mile the gradient increases by 8 inches per mile. So this "gradient" is not the deviation. It might help if you'd tell me what is the value of this "gradient" (or its increase ) for 3 miles (or for 10 miles), so I can compare it with the 36 inches (or 400, respectively) of the deviation.

The gradient is the instantaneous rate of change of height of the light ray above the ground with respect to horizontal distance travelled. It may be represented as dy/dx, and it is the tangent of the acute angle made between the light ray and a horizontal line. The total deviation over a certain distance is the cumulative effect of the change in gradient.

Since the gradient is increasing by 8 inches per mile every mile, then:

dy/dx = 8x + tan α

Where α is the angle at which the light is emitted. Since we are only interested in the difference in dy/dx from the expected straight line, and for a straight line the gradient is tan α, we may ignore this term and use dy/dx = 8x, as it is for horizontal light.

To find the cumulative effect of this change, we solve for y:

y = ∫₀^x₁ 8x dx

y = (4x₁² - 4(0²))

y = 4x₁²

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

What the hell.

What the hell.

Obviously.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on August 27, 2008, 12:24:30 AM

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

What the hell.

He's 5.

Quote from: astronomy101 on September 03, 2008, 01:35:34 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on August 27, 2008, 12:24:30 AM

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

What the hell.

He's 5.

Or OpenOffice.org Draw doesn't have an easy way to draw parabolic arcs, so I used the free draw tool instead.