The FE sun is impossible [revisited]

  • 162 Replies
  • 24368 Views
*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2008, 03:04:04 AM »
You guys were supposed to show us real equations by which one can use the geometry of the earth, moon and sun to predict the eclipse.
Why, because one guy told us to? Is it really that easy? I seem to notice you haven't posted real equations to show how a flat sun is emitting curved light. All we got is one crappy diagram that I've already posted my counterargument to. Why don't you show us exactly how that works?

My RET has a round sun that behaves appropriately regardless of current apparent visible position. In conjunction with the Moon and Earth, it accurately predicts tides, eclipses, and stellar precession.

Oh, really?

Well, when's the next solar eclipse in Chicago going to be?

Oh - and show your work instead of blindly trusting what you find on the Internet. "Because the scientists said it was going to be June 2nd" isn't an answer. Show me some math.

The next full eclipse in Chicago will be on Jul 17 2205. The next partial will be on May 20 2012. The math can be found here if you want to pick it apart. I have neither the interest nor the particular abilities to do so, nor do I see your post as anything but an attempt to turn the conversation away from the question at hand...

When it comes to blind trust I can think of worse parties to put it in than NASA, and I don't exactly need to understand all the various mathematical terms to see that the general theory behind RE eclipses makes more sense than an object that has never been seen, shows up indiscriminately just to cast it's shadow at the exact time, and then for all intents and purposes just disappears...

I think it would be appropriate to ask for more proof from FE'ers to verify their own theorems behind eclipse dynamics than to endlessly submit to questions about RE dynamics they have as much access to info on as I do... I swear to god, read book other than ENAG for Christs sake...
« Last Edit: September 06, 2008, 03:07:04 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2008, 06:28:12 AM »
Was there a single response to the OP?  ???
Bump
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #32 on: September 08, 2008, 04:15:02 AM »
Tom Bishop among others have fallen back on the support of FE writers to help explain phenomenons. However, supporting these "Sacred Texts" http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za02.htm means that I can attack them directly and save time.

Quote
I am curious how the sunsets can be explained as "too far to see" or an "optical illusion"

Explained in Chapter 9 of the book Earth Not a Globe:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm

It states that the sun which supposedly moves parallel to the surface of the Earth in a circle, appears to set because a distancing object will do such as a law of perspective. This would require the velocity of the sun to dramatically increase in speed the closer to the horizon it is in order to look as if it were in fact setting. Moving straight at a constant speed would make it look slower the further away it is.

Just to indulge this little overlooked implication, people the sun is passing over don't notice the sun speeding up but in fact see the opposite: slowing down on this straight line. The only explanation is that the sun actually sets. Besides, if the sun was that small, going such a distance would make it appear to shrink.

Quote
Quote
Basically, earthlings would be able to see the sun from anywhere on a flat earth.. even if the sun wasn't shinning directly on them.

The sun is very small and very close to the earth. This allows the sun to only light one section of the world at a time.

Which is why moving that far towards the horizon would make it appear to shrink massively. Only a very large object would appear to remain constant when moving that far away.

These issues were not covered in your "sacred texts".

I once pasted this discussion before, and today I read through every single post on every page. No valid answer was given. I reposted it today for two reasons.
1. To give FE'ers another chance to answer.
2. To become informed of any potential changes in FE theory.

Bump so people can see what was originally asked.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #33 on: September 08, 2008, 07:34:01 AM »
I have a question about sunsets and risings...
In FET, the sunlight hits a limited area of the earth, that is in what we call "day". Very good. Then for the sunsets, the sun gets further, and become smaller and optical effects and stuff. OK, but now... it's a fact that when it's night in a part of the world, in the other is day. So how do you coordinate this getting away movement of the sun, with the rising in the opposite part of the world? Something's missing here, or I don't get it.

Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #34 on: September 08, 2008, 07:39:32 AM »
I have a question about sunsets and risings...
In FET, the sunlight hits a limited area of the earth, that is in what we call "day". Very good. Then for the sunsets, the sun gets further, and become smaller and optical effects and stuff. OK, but now... it's a fact that when it's night in a part of the world, in the other is day. So how do you coordinate this getting away movement of the sun, with the rising in the opposite part of the world? Something's missing here, or I don't get it.

Did you read the FAQ? I know its long and tedious but it really is important. ;)
Anyways, I'd prefer not to spend to much time on this as it might lead off topic again, but the FE view is that the sun is small low and circles over the planet only illuminating a portion of it at a time.

Note: There is a section called Questions and Clarification above this one reserved for Debate and Discussion.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 07:46:21 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2008, 07:54:38 AM »
I have a question about sunsets and risings...
In FET, the sunlight hits a limited area of the earth, that is in what we call "day". Very good. Then for the sunsets, the sun gets further, and become smaller and optical effects and stuff. OK, but now... it's a fact that when it's night in a part of the world, in the other is day. So how do you coordinate this getting away movement of the sun, with the rising in the opposite part of the world? Something's missing here, or I don't get it.

Did you read the FAQ? I know its long and tedious but it really is important. ;)
Anyways, I'd prefer not to spend to much time on this as it might lead off topic again, but the FE view is that the sun is small low and circles over the planet only illuminating a portion of it at a time.

Note: There is a section called Questions and Clarification above this one reserved for Debate and Discussion.

FAQ:
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.

The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)

Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Now, I analyse it: Optical illusions is a very broad topic, I know some answers have been given around in the forums, but please, stop sending us to the FAQ when it's only a very tiny part of the info.
And again, the sun gets further away, so here in spain I see a sunset, then why in japan, they see a sunrise, at the same time??? Maybe you're saying that there a moment on which all earth is night at the same time, or that there's a zone of day with less light during the circular movement of the sun while it is away. I don't know, but clearly in the FAQ there isn't an answer.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2008, 09:20:17 AM »
I must have misunderstood your question (which is why I directed you to the FAQ). The question I thought you were asking was how does the sun set and rise in different location simultaneously? The simple answer would of course be the same as RE, that the places on Earth have better views of the sun because they are, well, different places.

Your response indicates that you have a question other than this, although I don't completely understand it. I would recommend creating a new thread to discuss your question and possibly uploading a diagram, as I am unsure as to where a problem would arise on FE.  ???

_________________________________

FE'ers I am still waiting for a response to the OP. An inability to account for these problems with the FE sun would require great revision in your theory.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2008, 09:23:51 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2008, 10:53:54 AM »
For all the lazy people out there, I have summarized the main points in the OP nice and neat.:

Problem 1.

FE model states the sun moves away from a point on the Earth to make it look like its "setting". Anyone who has seen the sun at all points of day can tell you the sun appears to move at a constant speed along its path in the sky. A distancing object overhead would not appear to travel at the same speed, because as it is further away, the angle you view it at approaches zero slower. Imagine a car next to you driving to your right. At first the speed seems substantial but as it gets further away the change is less noticeable. The sun would have to accelerate to maintain the illusion of constant speed. A timezone over, people see the sun moving as we do, meaning it didn't accelerate.

Problem 2.
Much to do with problem 1 but with size not speed... An object like the sun distancing overhead moving as far away as FE claims would shrink in size much more substantially than is viewed. Only a massive object very far away would seem not to change in size as it moved away. An extreme example is a ship and a rubber ball both move away from you. The rubber ball is close enough to look the same size as the ship. Both move half a mile away. The ball is barely if at all visible whereas the ship shrank less.

Problem 3 and 4. (problem 4) Using numbers from the FAQ we can mathematically prove that the sun should be visible from all points of earth. If you apply the notion that air pollution and only partial transparency is the cause, then (problem 3) this means that the sun would be seen in an in between state, where is is partially visible in the air. It would not even touch the ground before disappearing based on FE numbers. Watch the sun set. It goes behind the horizon, it doesn't fade out.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #38 on: September 09, 2008, 02:00:48 AM »
For all the lazy people out there, I have summarized the main points in the OP nice and neat.:

Problem 1.

FE model states the sun moves away from a point on the Earth to make it look like its "setting". Anyone who has seen the sun at all points of day can tell you the sun appears to move at a constant speed along its path in the sky. A distancing object overhead would not appear to travel at the same speed, because as it is further away, the angle you view it at approaches zero slower. Imagine a car next to you driving to your right. At first the speed seems substantial but as it gets further away the change is less noticeable. The sun would have to accelerate to maintain the illusion of constant speed. A timezone over, people see the sun moving as we do, meaning it didn't accelerate.

Problem 2.
Much to do with problem 1 but with size not speed... An object like the sun distancing overhead moving as far away as FE claims would shrink in size much more substantially than is viewed. Only a massive object very far away would seem not to change in size as it moved away. An extreme example is a ship and a rubber ball both move away from you. The rubber ball is close enough to look the same size as the ship. Both move half a mile away. The ball is barely if at all visible whereas the ship shrank less.

Problem 3 and 4. (problem 4) Using numbers from the FAQ we can mathematically prove that the sun should be visible from all points of earth. If you apply the notion that air pollution and only partial transparency is the cause, then (problem 3) this means that the sun would be seen in an in between state, where is is partially visible in the air. It would not even touch the ground before disappearing based on FE numbers. Watch the sun set. It goes behind the horizon, it doesn't fade out.


http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #39 on: September 09, 2008, 02:09:49 AM »
For all the lazy people out there, I have summarized the main points in the OP nice and neat.:

Problem 1.

FE model states the sun moves away from a point on the Earth to make it look like its "setting". Anyone who has seen the sun at all points of day can tell you the sun appears to move at a constant speed along its path in the sky. A distancing object overhead would not appear to travel at the same speed, because as it is further away, the angle you view it at approaches zero slower. Imagine a car next to you driving to your right. At first the speed seems substantial but as it gets further away the change is less noticeable. The sun would have to accelerate to maintain the illusion of constant speed. A timezone over, people see the sun moving as we do, meaning it didn't accelerate.

Problem 2.
Much to do with problem 1 but with size not speed... An object like the sun distancing overhead moving as far away as FE claims would shrink in size much more substantially than is viewed. Only a massive object very far away would seem not to change in size as it moved away. An extreme example is a ship and a rubber ball both move away from you. The rubber ball is close enough to look the same size as the ship. Both move half a mile away. The ball is barely if at all visible whereas the ship shrank less.

Problem 3 and 4. (problem 4) Using numbers from the FAQ we can mathematically prove that the sun should be visible from all points of earth. If you apply the notion that air pollution and only partial transparency is the cause, then (problem 3) this means that the sun would be seen in an in between state, where is is partially visible in the air. It would not even touch the ground before disappearing based on FE numbers. Watch the sun set. It goes behind the horizon, it doesn't fade out.


http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506

Tom,

In this model, the stars' gravitational field does not "spread out", because it is emanating from a "cosmic plane".

  -Therefore the field is does not get weaker with distance. 
  -Therefore we should (on the ground) be able to "feel" or detect this immensely strong, light-bending gravitation.  We can't.
  -Therefore the hypothesis is rejected.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2008, 02:13:48 AM »
Quote
  -Therefore the field is does not get weaker with distance. 
  -Therefore we should (on the ground) be able to "feel" or detect this immensely strong, light-bending gravitation.  We can't.
  -Therefore the hypothesis is rejected.

You're assuming that the gravitational field acts the same way on matter as it does on light. You're wrong.

First off no one knows exactly what a gravitational field is. Neither is it known how susceptible light is to gravitational fields. In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?

I suspect that the real answer is that several million g's isn't necessary, and that light is just more susceptible to gravitational fields than previously thought.

Until you can show me a controlled experiment which has tested the behavior of light in a gravitational field, your analysis on how light should be have in a gravitational field is stupid at best.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 02:17:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2008, 02:24:53 AM »
Heh, I was going to say something about sunspots, but if I derail this thread again ﮎingulaЯiτy would probably kill me. I'll flesh that out a bit more and make a thread later on.

Hey Tom, care to answer any of my question about how a flat sun emits light in the way you say it would and not in the way I say it should? Why would we see an ellipse and not a donut?

Also problem 2 mentioned by ﮎingulaЯiτy would still apply even given your bendy light theorem.
Even if it was accepted that the sun is an emitter of bendy light, it would still visibly become smaller as it moved out of view.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2008, 03:15:52 AM »
Quote
  -Therefore the field is does not get weaker with distance. 
  -Therefore we should (on the ground) be able to "feel" or detect this immensely strong, light-bending gravitation.  We can't.
  -Therefore the hypothesis is rejected.

You're assuming that the gravitational field acts the same way on matter as it does on light. You're wrong.

First off no one knows exactly what a gravitational field is. Neither is it known how susceptible light is to gravitational fields. In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?

I suspect that the real answer is that several million g's isn't necessary, and that light is just more susceptible to gravitational fields than previously thought.

Until you can show me a controlled experiment which has tested the behavior of light in a gravitational field, your analysis on how light should be have in a gravitational field is stupid at best.

Are you aware that this bendy sunlight model breaks general relativity?   

Tom Bishop's revised theory of general relativity.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2008, 03:40:52 AM »
Are you aware that this bendy sunlight model breaks general relativity?   

Tom Bishop's revised theory of general relativity.

He doesn't believe any of that Moon squirter. He would tell you Einstein was a conspirator if you asked...

Even given that his own theory is fundamentally flawed he still posts it every day, and avoids posts like yours and mine that might show a fundamental flaw... Like that big dog turd on the floor that no one wants to pick up, if he doesn't "see" it, then it's not really there.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #44 on: September 09, 2008, 03:47:48 AM »
Are you aware that this bendy sunlight model breaks general relativity?   

Tom Bishop's revised theory of general relativity.

He doesn't believe any of that Moon squirter. He would tell you Einstein was a conspirator if you asked...

Even given that his own theory is fundamentally flawed he still posts it every day, and avoids posts like yours and mine that might show a fundamental flaw... Like that big dog turd on the floor that no one wants to pick up, if he doesn't "see" it, then it's not really there.

Point taken.  If true be told, I kind of admire Tom's stamina.  I also look forward to his next big theory.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #45 on: September 09, 2008, 04:00:58 AM »
I wouldn't get your hopes up. He's just going to ignore anything here not to his liking, and keep posting the same damn crap in later threads.

I'll be there with my questions though, and he'll be there with his not answering them... It seems to be SOP here at TFES.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #46 on: September 09, 2008, 10:42:37 AM »
It really is their SOP.  There are many threads that bring up inconvenient information or questions that just die because the FEers ignore them because it doesn't fit their current understanding.  Then one day they come up with a new theory, but only some of them believe it (i.e. electromagnetic acceleration), but then that "must be the explanation."

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #47 on: September 10, 2008, 07:07:23 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506

That thread doesn't seem answer my questions --

"According to Einstein's General Relativity Theory, light will be affected in the same way matter is affected by gravity. This is because under this theory, we should think of gravity not in terms of vector like forces, but as a consequence of the "shape" of the universe."


Your light bending model requires gravitation effect on light to change drastically from what we have observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
« Last Edit: September 10, 2008, 07:39:47 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

sokarul

  • 16787
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #48 on: September 10, 2008, 09:43:49 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506

That thread doesn't seem answer my questions --

"According to Einstein's General Relativity Theory, light will be affected in the same way matter is affected by gravity. This is because under this theory, we should think of gravity not in terms of vector like forces, but as a consequence of the "shape" of the universe."


Your light bending model requires gravitation effect on light to change drastically from what we have observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Bending light theory was simply made up by robosteve.  Nothing more.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #49 on: September 15, 2008, 07:07:49 AM »
[Bump for a response to OP]
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2008, 03:18:35 PM »
Since over the past few years no REer has ever posted such calculations for us when challenged we should assume that they do not exist.

Since I know this has been keeping you up at night, I found a description of how to determine the time and location of eclipses.  It is lengthy, but appears to be complete.  Just so it was from the same time period as Rowbotham, I found a source from the 1880s, so it is definitely pre-NASA.

Quote from: American Practical Navigator



Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2008, 03:26:49 PM »
...and more of the calculations required.  Remember Tom, you wanted all of this.

Quote from: American Practical Navigator



As you can see, this is fairly complex math, but it is doable.  Now you can't say that a method of calculation was never presented.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2008, 04:13:50 PM »
Quote
As you can see, this is fairly complex math, but it is doable.  Now you can't say that a method of calculation was never presented.

It's the exact same math Rowbotham presents at the end of the Lunar Eclipse Chapter of Earth Not a globe. The math is not based on orbital mechanics , but an algebraic analysis to find the time, magnitude, and duration of the next eclipse based on the patterns of previous eclipses.

If you read your math carefully there are several references to tables from which to get the pattern of eclipses from. The page you presented isn't predicting the eclipse based on Kelplean orbits of the earth, moon, and sun.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 04:16:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

jdoe

  • 388
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2008, 04:43:57 PM »
Quote
  -Therefore the field is does not get weaker with distance. 
  -Therefore we should (on the ground) be able to "feel" or detect this immensely strong, light-bending gravitation.  We can't.
  -Therefore the hypothesis is rejected.

You're assuming that the gravitational field acts the same way on matter as it does on light. You're wrong.

First off no one knows exactly what a gravitational field is. Neither is it known how susceptible light is to gravitational fields. In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?

I suspect that the real answer is that several million g's isn't necessary, and that light is just more susceptible to gravitational fields than previously thought.

Until you can show me a controlled experiment which has tested the behavior of light in a gravitational field, your analysis on how light should be have in a gravitational field is stupid at best.

Remember Tom, gravity=acceleration.   In accelerating reference frames, light and matter are acted upon equally, and it's easy to figure out how much light bends.  The harder you accelerate the more light bends.  It's not hard to show that an acceleration of several million g's is necessary to bend light as required by FE.
Mars or Bust

Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2008, 08:31:42 PM »
Quote
  -Therefore the field is does not get weaker with distance. 
  -Therefore we should (on the ground) be able to "feel" or detect this immensely strong, light-bending gravitation.  We can't.
  -Therefore the hypothesis is rejected.

You're assuming that the gravitational field acts the same way on matter as it does on light. You're wrong.

First off no one knows exactly what a gravitational field is. Neither is it known how susceptible light is to gravitational fields. In the Round Earth model someone looks into a filtered telescope, sees the sun pass in front of a star - sees the star's light warped around it and proclaims - "ah ha!, since the sun is 93 million miles away and 900,000 miles in diameter, it must take a gravitational field of this size to affect photons to the observed degree." But what happens when to the susceptibility of light in a gravitational field when the sun is really 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter?

I suspect that the real answer is that several million g's isn't necessary, and that light is just more susceptible to gravitational fields than previously thought.

Until you can show me a controlled experiment which has tested the behavior of light in a gravitational field, your analysis on how light should be have in a gravitational field is stupid at best.

Are you aware that this bendy sunlight model breaks general relativity?   

Tom Bishop's revised theory of general relativity.


...that and that makes everyone in the southern hemisphere a co-conspirator.

*

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
  • It went wherever I did go.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #55 on: September 16, 2008, 04:19:07 PM »
So there would be an intense vertical beam of light which hasn't been bent, at noon, surrounded by a much dimmer donut of light.
...can't say i've ever seen that

No, there wouldn't. The vertical rays would not bend at all, those slightly away from vertical would bend by only a tiny bit, those slightly further away would bend by a tiny bit more, etc. The beam of light would remain contiguous.

This suggests to me that the light coming straight down is subjected to different conditions to the light coming off at angles... why would the light coming straight down not curve? Does air do different things if you come down through it perpendicular to Earth?
I spent all of 5 minutes learning about bloody gods just before the exam and its bloody qeistions on fox hunting and abortions.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2008, 04:23:47 PM »
This suggests to me that the light coming straight down is subjected to different conditions to the light coming off at angles... why would the light coming straight down not curve?

No, light coming straight down is subjected to the same conditions. It doesn't curve because light curves in the shape of a parabola, and for the gradient of a parabola to reach infinity requires an infinite amount of time if one were to travel along it from its vertex at a constant speed. Conversely, for a vertical ray of light travelling at a constant speed to reach the vertex of the parabola takes an infinite amount of time.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
  • It went wherever I did go.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2008, 03:06:06 AM »
Fair enough...
I spent all of 5 minutes learning about bloody gods just before the exam and its bloody qeistions on fox hunting and abortions.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The FE sun is impossible [revisited]
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2008, 06:19:47 AM »
BISHOP.

"According to Einstein's General Relativity Theory, light will be affected in the same way matter is affected by gravity. This is because under this theory, we should think of gravity not in terms of vector like forces, but as a consequence of the "shape" of the universe."


Your light bending model requires gravitation effect on light to change drastically from what we have observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

RESPOND.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.