« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14   Go Down

A Discussion of Bendy Light

  • 395 Replies
  • 102118 Views
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A Discussion of Bendy Light
« on: December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM »
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 07:42:38 AM by Cinlef »
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2008, 12:01:35 PM »
Our "reality" conforms to everyday observation.  Yours does not.
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2008, 07:35:00 AM »
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

NOW YOU'VE GOT IT!
Logged
?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10716
  • +0/-0
  • ...
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2008, 08:01:08 AM »
Light really is bendy, in RE too right?
Logged
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM »
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10716
  • +0/-0
  • ...
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2008, 08:16:04 AM »
Daddy why is the sky blue?
Why, it's sky mirrors Billy.


See?
Logged
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.
?

LovesToSplooj

  • 19
  • +0/-0
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2008, 10:27:42 AM »

you say magical forces?
how do you explain you "DARK ENERGY" than?
thats sounds like a lot of "magic" to me

and werew is your prooof?
fact that it really is there, and how do you really know of some ice wall, have you ever seen it?
and dont give me the same lame answer read the FAQ i read all of it and its complete nonsense
Logged
?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10716
  • +0/-0
  • ...
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2008, 10:29:16 AM »
Quote from: LovesToSplooj on December 14, 2008, 10:27:42 AM

you say magical forces?
how do you explain you "DARK ENERGY" than?
thats sounds like a lot of "magic" to me

and werew is your prooof?
fact that it really is there, and how do you really know of some ice wall, have you ever seen it?
and dont give me the same lame answer read the FAQ i read all of it and its complete nonsense

Check out the FAQ.
Logged
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2008, 10:41:43 AM »
Quote from: LovesToSplooj on December 14, 2008, 10:27:42 AM

you say magical forces? Yes. You learned to read, good for you! Now we just need to fix your issue with typing and logical thought.
how do you explain you "DARK ENERGY" than? It's in your theory too, either admit it's true and move on, or undermine your whole belief. There is proof, this is just easier for me to type and you're hopefully able to understand it.
thats sounds like a lot of "magic" to me Why so many quotation marks? It looks like you need a little help with the punctuation, or are you just typing with your forehead again?

and werew is your prooof? What? Use words, don't expect me to read your mind.
fact that it really is there, and how do you really know of some ice wall, have you ever seen it? Not personally, it's just logic. The Earth is flat and accelerating, hence the water and atmosphere should fall off, unless there is some physical barrier, the water and atmosphere do not, hence there is a barrier, a wall of some sort. The area in which it is situated contains a lot of ice, so this wall would naturally be either made of ice or stone, which has since developed a thick layer of ice.
and dont give me the same lame answer read the FAQ i read all of it and its complete nonsense Until you actually do read it, expect to hear it a lot. We all know you haven't, don't bullshit us here because we notice when we're lied to. Just because you believe anything you're told doesn't mean we do. Also, wrong forum. CN is elsewhere, and it suits you.

Replies in italics because you don't deserve a quote dissection.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2008, 11:07:22 AM »
Actually they are. Light can bend in both theories, and there is acceleration in both theories without an apparent mechanism for it. All arguments against bendy light and the UA involve "LOL IT DEOSNT HAPPAN", which is wrong no matter what you believe, so saying that is just shutting up stupid noobs or making them find some points worth debating.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2008, 02:14:49 PM »
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).

I like how you're willing to use either Newtonian gravity or relativistic gravitation depending on what's convenient. And please see bolded parts of the quote for your contradiction.

Goldstein, that's just wrong from the start. See first bolded part from the above quote for details.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2008, 02:52:35 PM »
It does. What I was saying is how you said "REers say light doesn't bend like that", so I pointed you to Perfect Circle's post where he started by saying "light doesn't bend in RE."
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2008, 07:37:59 PM »
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).

I like how you're willing to use either Newtonian gravity or relativistic gravitation depending on what's convenient. And please see bolded parts of the quote for your contradiction.

Goldstein, that's just wrong from the start. See first bolded part from the above quote for details.

Light technically does not bend. It's like drawing a straight line on a piece of paper and then folding the paper: it's still a straight line.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.
?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10716
  • +0/-0
  • ...
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2008, 07:39:31 PM »
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).

I like how you're willing to use either Newtonian gravity or relativistic gravitation depending on what's convenient. And please see bolded parts of the quote for your contradiction.

Goldstein, that's just wrong from the start. See first bolded part from the above quote for details.

Light technically does not bend. It's like drawing a straight line on a piece of paper and then folding the paper: it's still a straight line.

Uh, no its not ???
Logged
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.
*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2008, 08:00:47 PM »
Quote from: Round_Earth(No, flat) on December 14, 2008, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).

I like how you're willing to use either Newtonian gravity or relativistic gravitation depending on what's convenient. And please see bolded parts of the quote for your contradiction.

Goldstein, that's just wrong from the start. See first bolded part from the above quote for details.

Light technically does not bend. It's like drawing a straight line on a piece of paper and then folding the paper: it's still a straight line.

Uh, no its not ???
Let's use a triangle instead. A triangle is a two-dimensional shape made up of 3 straight lines. Draw a triangle on a piece of paper and bend the paper: it is still a triangle, because the lines are still straight in 2 dimensions. 3 straight lines on a curved surface. Translate that to three-dimensions for the apparent bending of light.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.
?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2008, 06:06:21 AM »
Quote from: goldstein on December 14, 2008, 03:00:02 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 02:52:35 PM
It does. What I was saying is how you said "REers say light doesn't bend like that", so I pointed you to Perfect Circle's post where he started by saying "light doesn't bend in RE."

Uh huh. And then you read this bit:

FE'er: Are you saying light doesn't bend?
RE'er: Well no, not exactly, it can appear...

It was a humour piece... (yet still a fairly accurate representation of events here)... you knew that right?...
Interesting how FET triumphs even in a fictional dialogue developed by a round earther... :-\
Logged
?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is a Sphere
A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2008, 07:41:10 AM »
Quote from: goldstein on December 15, 2008, 07:20:40 AM
No. My point was that FE Theory is glaringly inconsistent.

Grief. We know this is an alt account. Why hasn't someone deleted it?

Actually I checked the IP's and Cheryl is not in fact Tom Bishop's alt.

Friendly neighborhood mod
Cinlef
Logged
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 03:54:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2008, 07:59:53 AM »
Quote from: Cinlef on December 15, 2008, 07:41:10 AM
Quote from: goldstein on December 15, 2008, 07:20:40 AM
No. My point was that FE Theory is glaringly inconsistent.

Grief. We know this is an alt account. Why hasn't someone deleted it?

Actually I checked the IP's and Cheryl is not in fact Tom Bishop's alt.

Friendly neighborhood mod
Cinlef

She definitely does not appear to be new here (on her first 10 post it was obvious that she was very well versed about this site), which is why I was originally suspect, I realize there is no other evidence, so I let it go after the first day.  Perhaps she is a veteran of the .net site?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2008, 08:02:16 AM by ragnarr »
Logged
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2008, 11:13:50 AM »
Or perhaps she simply engaged her brain for decent period before posting.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2008, 11:19:27 AM »
Quote from: NEEMAN on December 15, 2008, 11:13:50 AM
Or perhaps she simply engaged her brain for decent period before posting.

Perhaps, like I said I dropped it after the first day.  There is always some suspicion, especially since so many people around here have alts.  It should be regulated more.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10930
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2008, 11:31:45 AM »
That isn't possible. And Goldstein, I knew it was a joke, hence it really doesn't belong in this subforum, giving that it has no attached point. The fact is that RE just isn't willing to get over the contradiction and unless you can come up with a better point than "NO IT DOESN'T, UNLESS I WANT IT TO" then just give up on the debating and let big boys and girls discuss it.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2008, 11:59:24 AM »
Bendy light occurs in RE too. Ever seen a prism? Or put a pencil in a cup of water?
Logged
?

zeroply

  • 391
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth believer
Re: A discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2008, 12:56:54 PM »
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: Round_Earth(No, flat) on December 14, 2008, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).

I like how you're willing to use either Newtonian gravity or relativistic gravitation depending on what's convenient. And please see bolded parts of the quote for your contradiction.

Goldstein, that's just wrong from the start. See first bolded part from the above quote for details.

Light technically does not bend. It's like drawing a straight line on a piece of paper and then folding the paper: it's still a straight line.

Uh, no its not ???
Let's use a triangle instead. A triangle is a two-dimensional shape made up of 3 straight lines. Draw a triangle on a piece of paper and bend the paper: it is still a triangle, because the lines are still straight in 2 dimensions. 3 straight lines on a curved surface. Translate that to three-dimensions for the apparent bending of light.

By definition it would not be a triangle. What if I drew the triangle on a sheet of rubber and then stretched it?
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2008, 01:44:17 PM »
It'd be a stretched out triangle.
Logged
*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2008, 03:07:53 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 15, 2008, 11:59:24 AM
Bendy light occurs in RE too. Ever seen a prism? Or put a pencil in a cup of water?
Neither of those involve light bending.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.
*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2008, 03:10:51 PM »
Quote from: zeroply on December 15, 2008, 12:56:54 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 08:00:47 PM
Quote from: Round_Earth(No, flat) on December 14, 2008, 07:39:31 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 14, 2008, 08:13:47 AM
Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 14, 2008, 12:06:43 AM
Quote from: General Douchebag on December 13, 2008, 11:56:30 AM
There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.
You mean like bendy light, UA, DE, celestial gears, and sky mirrors?

Bendy light is possible in both RE and FE, it just occurs more in FE. The UA/DE (They're just two names for exactly the same thing) also occurs in RE as well, I don't follow the celestial gears theory, and I've never ever heard of sky mirrors.
Light does not bend in RET. If passing through different mediums, light will change speed, changing its apparent angle to the normal. It can look smooth if there is a gradient index-of-refraction. This cannot work in multiple directions from multiple points. Space can be bent forming a curved geodesic, which light will follow (the photons themselves still travels in a straight line).

I like how you're willing to use either Newtonian gravity or relativistic gravitation depending on what's convenient. And please see bolded parts of the quote for your contradiction.

Goldstein, that's just wrong from the start. See first bolded part from the above quote for details.

Light technically does not bend. It's like drawing a straight line on a piece of paper and then folding the paper: it's still a straight line.

Uh, no its not ???
Let's use a triangle instead. A triangle is a two-dimensional shape made up of 3 straight lines. Draw a triangle on a piece of paper and bend the paper: it is still a triangle, because the lines are still straight in 2 dimensions. 3 straight lines on a curved surface. Translate that to three-dimensions for the apparent bending of light.

By definition it would not be a triangle. What if I drew the triangle on a sheet of rubber and then stretched it?
Yes it would, it just wouldn't be a Euclidean triangle. Light does not bend, the path itself is bent. Light is still following a straight line in 3D space.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 30, 2008, 04:09:59 PM
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.
*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2008, 03:11:59 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 15, 2008, 11:59:24 AM
Bendy light occurs in RE too. Ever seen a prism? Or put a pencil in a cup of water?
That bendy light is due to refraction however. The bendy light we are talking about's cause is unknown.
Logged
?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Re: A Discussion of Bendy Light
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2008, 04:17:08 PM »
Quote from: Johannes Kepler on December 15, 2008, 03:11:59 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on December 15, 2008, 11:59:24 AM
Bendy light occurs in RE too. Ever seen a prism? Or put a pencil in a cup of water?
That bendy light is due to refraction however. The bendy light we are talking about's cause is unknown.

So then how do we know when what we are seeing is a bendy light induced distortion if we have no idea of its cause?

A puzzled
Cinlef
Logged
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

Quote from: Colonel Gaydafi on February 07, 2009, 03:54:06 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14   Go Up
« previous next »