A Discussion of Bendy Light

EA theory needs to match what is observed in nature.

I agree.

What makes you believe that EA must conform to a secant curve?

I don't.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2009, 02:14:00 AM

If one person is at point A and points laser to point B then how light can simultaneously bend up and down near the point B? That means the light from person seems to be bending up when it reaches to the point B but light which comes from point B bends down. It must bend down because we see things because light reflects from them and for observer to see the same spot where the light reaches it must travel backward the same path to the observer.

Yes, it travels the same path, which has upward curvature. I'm not sure why you think it should bend down.

If it curves up when traveling from point A to point B and travels back in same way then it can't curve upward because same way to back is downward curve.

If it curves up when traveling from point A to point B and travels back in same way then it can't curve upward because same way to back is downward curve.

No it isn't. Where did you learn geometry?

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2009, 06:45:17 AM

EA theory needs to match what is observed in nature.

I agree.

Then EAT needs to match the apparent curvature of the earth.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2009, 06:45:17 AM

What makes you believe that EA must conform to a secant curve?

I don't.

Then why do you propose that it does?

Then EAT needs to match the apparent curvature of the earth.

Where is your evidence that the predictions made by RET are valid?

Then why do you propose that it does?

If you'll go back and read the post you were responding to, I think you will find that I didn't.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2009, 07:02:41 AM

If it curves up when traveling from point A to point B and travels back in same way then it can't curve upward because same way to back is downward curve.

No it isn't. Where did you learn geometry?

 Yes, it is. Where did you learn geometry?

Yes, it is. Where did you learn geometry?

A particular shape with upward curvature will always have upward curvature. It doesn't matter which way you follow it.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2009, 07:39:35 AM

Then EAT needs to match the apparent curvature of the earth.

Where is your evidence that the predictions made by RET are valid?

We aren't discussing RET predictions.  Where is your evidence that the predictions made by EAT are valid?

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2009, 07:39:35 AM

Then why do you propose that it does?

If you'll go back and read the post you were responding to, I think you will find that I didn't.

Then why did you bring up? 

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2009, 11:48:47 AM

If bendy light is responsible for the apparent curvature of the earth, then the table that Rowbotham provides clearly shows how much the light must bend in order to cause such apparent curvature.

Rowbotham is basing his figures on the predictions of RET. I see no reason why EA theory would have to match that shape exactly; a secant curve is a very unnatural shape for such a bend.

We aren't discussing RET predictions.  Where is your evidence that the predictions made by EAT are valid?

We are discussing RET predictions; as far as I can tell, that's what Rowbotham's data are based on. Also, I don't have any evidence as yet, because I am not even entirely sure what the exact predictions are yet.

Then why did you bring up? 

Quote from: Robosteve on August 20, 2009, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2009, 11:48:47 AM

If bendy light is responsible for the apparent curvature of the earth, then the table that Rowbotham provides clearly shows how much the light must bend in order to cause such apparent curvature.

Rowbotham is basing his figures on the predictions of RET. I see no reason why EA theory would have to match that shape exactly; a secant curve is a very unnatural shape for such a bend.

Because in order to match the predictions of RET, a secant curve is what would be required.

Because in order to match the predictions of RET, a secant curve is what would be required.

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

High school geometry.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2009, 12:18:42 PM

And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

High school geometry.

Last I knew, a secant in geometry is different from a secant function in trigonometry.  Either way, that still doesn't explain how you came to your conclusion.  I'm looking for the step-by-step process that you used to justify this statement.

Because in order to match the predictions of RET, a secant curve is what would be required.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2009, 11:15:20 AM

Yes, it is. Where did you learn geometry?

A particular shape with upward curvature will always have upward curvature. It doesn't matter which way you follow it.

 I guess we talk about different things. I talk about blue line in this drawing. What you talk about?



 And The light doesn't actually curve like blue line, it goes like red line, because else you would get very fast ascent in the end of the path but you don't. You get steady elevation, so the light would travel in your EA like red line, not like blue. But in both cases you o up from A to b and down from B to A.

Quote from: Verrine on August 20, 2009, 01:31:48 PM

Why were you banned?

Irrelevant.

Yeah, like you've never made an irrelevant post or avoided a question.

Last I knew, a secant in geometry is different from a secant function in trigonometry.  Either way, that still doesn't explain how you came to your conclusion.  I'm looking for the step-by-step process that you used to justify this statement.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 21, 2009, 11:53:21 AM

Because in order to match the predictions of RET, a secant curve is what would be required.

We want to find y as a function of x. Using high school mathematics, we have the following relationships:

x = rθ
y + r = r / cos θ

Now all we need to do is relate the two:

y = (r / cos θ) - r
y = r * [sec (x/r) - 1]

I guess we talk about different things. I talk about blue line in this drawing. What you talk about?



And The light doesn't actually curve like blue line, it goes like red line, because else you would get very fast ascent in the end of the path but you don't. You get steady elevation, so the light would travel in your EA like red line, not like blue. But in both cases you o up from A to b and down from B to A.

We are talking about the same thing, then. Do you understand the difference between gradient and curvature? One corresponds to the first derivative of a function, the other to the second derivative. The blue line has opposite gradient if you go in the opposite direction, but the same curvature.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 20, 2009, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 20, 2009, 01:31:48 PM

Why were you banned?

Irrelevant.

Yeah, like you've never made an irrelevant post or avoided a question.

Please stop derailing the thread.

If light is bending, why don't we see airplanes over the "horizon's" surface?

Quote from: Verrine on August 21, 2009, 01:13:39 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 20, 2009, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 20, 2009, 01:31:48 PM

Why were you banned?

Irrelevant.

Yeah, like you've never made an irrelevant post or avoided a question.

Please stop derailing the thread.

C'mon, you FE'rs do this in every thread. Wouldn't it be easier to just answer?

Quote from: Robosteve on August 21, 2009, 05:46:26 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 21, 2009, 01:13:39 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 20, 2009, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 20, 2009, 01:31:48 PM

Why were you banned?

Irrelevant.

Yeah, like you've never made an irrelevant post or avoided a question.

Please stop derailing the thread.

C'mon, you FE'rs do this in every thread. Wouldn't it be easier to just answer?

He was banned for hacking the site, tracing the IP's of several irritating noobs and brutally torturing them until they begged for death, a mercy he then granted. Huh, he just logged off.

If light is bending, why don't we see airplanes over the "horizon's" surface?

The horizon doesn't have a surface, it is an imaginary line.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 21, 2009, 05:46:26 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 21, 2009, 01:13:39 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on August 20, 2009, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: Verrine on August 20, 2009, 01:31:48 PM

Why were you banned?

Irrelevant.

Yeah, like you've never made an irrelevant post or avoided a question.

Please stop derailing the thread.

C'mon, you FE'rs do this in every thread. Wouldn't it be easier to just answer?

In D&D, it is against the rules to derail the thread, so please, read the rules, stop doing it and stick to the discussion at hand.

Quote from: zork on August 21, 2009, 12:40:18 PM

I guess we talk about different things. I talk about blue line in this drawing. What you talk about?



And The light doesn't actually curve like blue line, it goes like red line, because else you would get very fast ascent in the end of the path but you don't. You get steady elevation, so the light would travel in your EA like red line, not like blue. But in both cases you go up from A to b and down from B to A.

We are talking about the same thing, then. Do you understand the difference between gradient and curvature? One corresponds to the first derivative of a function, the other to the second derivative. The blue line has opposite gradient if you go in the opposite direction, but the same curvature.

We are not talking about same things. I talk about going up in one direction and if you go up in one direction then you go down if you come back exactly the same way. Don't bring in gradient because it's simply about going up and coming down(straight line which is drawn as red line). Or if you insist that there is curve then I guess you can show how the light does some kind final struggle at the end of it's path and ascends there much more compared to it's starting path. It must be clearly visible in laser lights at long distances.

We are not talking about same things. I talk about going up in one direction and if you go up in one direction then you go down if you come back exactly the same way. Don't bring in gradient because it's simply about going up and coming down(straight line which is drawn as red line). Or if you insist that there is curve then I guess you can show how the light does some kind final struggle at the end of it's path and ascends there much more compared to it's starting path. It must be clearly visible in laser lights at long distances.

I can't understand what you're trying to say, but quite simply, your blue line curves up and your red line does not curve at all.

Quote from: markjo on August 21, 2009, 12:34:58 PM

Last I knew, a secant in geometry is different from a secant function in trigonometry.  Either way, that still doesn't explain how you came to your conclusion.  I'm looking for the step-by-step process that you used to justify this statement.

Quote from: Robosteve on August 21, 2009, 11:53:21 AM

Because in order to match the predictions of RET, a secant curve is what would be required.

We want to find y as a function of x. Using high school mathematics, we have the following relationships:

x = rθ
y + r = r / cos θ

Now all we need to do is relate the two:

y = (r / cos θ) - r
y = r * [sec (x/r) - 1]

OK, I think that I see where you're going with this.  Now, since the secant function can be defined in terms of the unit circle (inverse of the cosine function, if nothing else), please explain why exactly would it be unnatural for a for a ray of light to follow a path that is (at least in part) described using a secant function.

OK, I think that I see where you're going with this.  Now, since the secant function can be defined in terms of the unit circle (inverse of the cosine function, if nothing else), please explain why exactly would it be unnatural for a for a ray of light to follow a path that is (at least in part) described using a secant function.

Because the expression for the acceleration on a photon in terms of its gradient would be extremely complicated, which is usually not the way of nature. The formula I posted a few weeks ago was derived using the simplest possible relationship between acceleration and gradient that would always yield an upward curvature, and therefore I believe that it approximates the most natural shape for a curved light ray ("approximates" because it is a simplified equation).

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2009, 05:06:52 AM

OK, I think that I see where you're going with this.  Now, since the secant function can be defined in terms of the unit circle (inverse of the cosine function, if nothing else), please explain why exactly would it be unnatural for a for a ray of light to follow a path that is (at least in part) described using a secant function.

Because the expression for the acceleration on a photon in terms of its gradient would be extremely complicated, which is usually not the way of nature.

I agree completely, which is exactly why I believe that your entire concept of the EA is very unlikely.  Essentially you are trying to invent an entirely new branch of physics to explain a phenomenon that has a much simpler explanation (the earth being round).

The formula I posted a few weeks ago was derived using the simplest possible relationship between acceleration and gradient that would always yield an upward curvature, and therefore I believe that it approximates the most natural shape for a curved light ray ("approximates" because it is a simplified equation).

Do you have any experimental or observational evidence that this "simplest possible relationship" is what is actually observed when you look out your window or try to restore the partially sunken hull of a ship using a sufficiently powerful telescope?

I agree completely, which is exactly why I believe that your entire concept of the EA is very unlikely.  Essentially you are trying to invent an entirely new branch of physics to explain a phenomenon that has a much simpler explanation (the earth being round).

I don't see how the Earth curving is any simpler than light curving. They are both phenomena that are generally observed to be straight; all we can conclude at present is that one of them must be curved.

Do you have any experimental or observational evidence that this "simplest possible relationship" is what is actually observed when you look out your window or try to restore the partially sunken hull of a ship using a sufficiently powerful telescope?

No.

They are both phenomena that are generally observed to be straight; all we can conclude at present is that one of them must be curved.

True enough.  However, since the EAT has so little evidence to support it and RET is a much more mature theory, RET is generally considered the better theory.

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2009, 06:23:08 AM

Do you have any experimental or observational evidence that this "simplest possible relationship" is what is actually observed when you look out your window or try to restore the partially sunken hull of a ship using a sufficiently powerful telescope?

No.

Then how can you be sure that this "simplest possible relationship" is even plausible, let alone correct?

Then how can you be sure that this "simplest possible relationship" is even plausible, let alone correct?

Evidence will be collected once the expected difference between FET+EA and RET is fully understood.

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2009, 08:03:58 AM

Then how can you be sure that this "simplest possible relationship" is even plausible, let alone correct?

Evidence will be collected once the expected difference between FET+EA and RET is fully understood.

  I thought that the Zetetic method was to collect evidence first and then see where that evidence leads you.

  I thought that the Zetetic method was to collect evidence first and then see where that evidence leads you.

Where did I claim to be following the Zetetic method?