A Discussion of Bendy Light

Quote from: markjo on August 24, 2009, 08:25:28 AM

  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?

Then how do you expect to EAT to gain the support of the FET community if you use the obviously flawed scientific method?

I don't see how it is incompatible with the Zetetic method.

I don't see how it is incompatible with the Zetetic method.

  Have you not read ENaG?  Rowbotham clearly explains how the scientific method and zetetic method are completely incompatible.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 24, 2009, 10:25:27 AM

I don't see how it is incompatible with the Zetetic method.

 Have you not read ENaG?  Rowbotham clearly explains how the scientific method and zetetic method are completely incompatible.

First of all, whilst the scientific method has problems, that doesn't mean it cannot uncover truth. It just means that it has gaping holes in its underlying philosophy.


Secondly, if you first prove that the Earth is flat, then you know the Earth cannot be curved, so this is not what produces the observable phenomona. By investigating the observable phenomona, we can see that they occur in a consistent and regular fashion at many points on the Earth, at all times and under many conditions, with variables having too little effect for it to be a question of optics. It is therefore easy to induce that the observable phenomona must be the result of light 'bending' in some way. All of this is to my mind in keeping with the Zetetic method.


Now, Robosteve has hypothesised that this 'bending' is the result of electromagnetic acceleration. Zetetics do not start with a hypothesis, that is true. However, the difference between the scientific method and the Zetetic method is that even if his theory produces brilliant and highly accurate predictions, I will not regard it as proven until there is definite evidence of electromagnetic acceleration taking place. The fact that light bends does not prove that light bends as a result of electromagnetic acceleration.

Quote from: zork on August 24, 2009, 02:33:00 AM

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.

  Sure, because you don't get any observational data for the blue line. You get zero gradient at first, then small at middle and then suddenly it climbs up at the end. But you got constant gradient for laser beam if you shine it in a distance about couple miles. And as it reaches to the point where it is higher than started then it goes up at first and when it comes back then it must take downward direction to reach the starting point.

Sure, because you don't get any observational data for the blue line. You get zero gradient at first, then small at middle and then suddenly it climbs up at the end. But you got constant gradient for laser beam if you shine it in a distance about couple miles. And as it reaches to the point where it is higher than started then it goes up at first and when it comes back then it must take downward direction to reach the starting point.

You are talking about gradient, not curvature. And you are incorrect, the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

Has anyone factored in the effect of the equivalence principle here? That will contribute some though probably not enough.

Has anyone factored in the effect of the equivalence principle here? That will contribute some though probably not enough.

What does the equivalence principle have to do with anything?

Well the effect of the accelerating Earth with cause the light to bend for an observer on Earth as if they were in a gravitational potential. As your previous equation I think was the deviation one would expect from geometry, though I haven't checked. You quite possible have the expected deviation using the weak field approximation. Tough I have neither the time nor inclination to derive it myself.

Well the effect of the accelerating Earth with cause the light to bend for an observer on Earth as if they were in a gravitational potential. As your previous equation I think was the deviation one would expect from geometry, though I haven't checked. You quite possible have the expected deviation using the weak field approximation. Tough I have neither the time nor inclination to derive it myself.

Well, yes, that equation approximates the shape expected from an inertial frame of reference. The full expression for terrestrial observations would need an additional term accounting for the motion of the Earth.

Quote from: zork on August 25, 2009, 12:45:10 AM

Sure, because you don't get any observational data for the blue line. You get zero gradient at first, then small at middle and then suddenly it climbs up at the end. But you got constant gradient for laser beam if you shine it in a distance about couple miles. And as it reaches to the point where it is higher than started then it goes up at first and when it comes back then it must take downward direction to reach the starting point.

You are talking about gradient, not curvature. And you are incorrect, the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

I will not argue about gradient and curvature again but try to post again the theoretical experiment for determining straight or bendy light. It will not assume anything about the shape of the earth and doesn't depend on it.
  We need mirror and laser beam. Let's put mirror some 1500 meters away from laser. At first we adjust laser so that the beam returns to itself, to starting point. we mark the point at destination. Then we lift laser 5 degree up and measure the difference from the first point at the destination. We can then calculate the length of the AC because we know three angles and one side. The line AC or X would be about 131.23 meters if the light is going straight(we must also leave the room for some error, refraction). Point is that we can calculate the line AC with sufficient precision if light travels straight. If light is bending then we should get AC more longer from our calculated lenght. And it should increase with distance because light bends more in longer distances.

I will not argue about gradient and curvature again but try to post again the theoretical experiment for determining straight or bendy light. It will not assume anything about the shape of the earth and doesn't depend on it.
  We need mirror and laser beam. Let's put mirror some 1500 meters away from laser. At first we adjust laser so that the beam returns to itself, to starting point. we mark the point at destination. Then we lift laser 5 degree up and measure the difference from the first point at the destination. We can then calculate the length of the AC because we know three angles and one side. The line AC or X would be about 131.23 meters if the light is going straight(we must also leave the room for some error, refraction). Point is that we can calculate the line AC with sufficient precision if light travels straight. If light is bending then we should get AC more longer from our calculated lenght. And it should increase with distance because light bends more in longer distances.

That diagram assumes the Earth is flat. If the Earth is not flat, then AB is not a straight line and AC will also be longer.

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 05:09:47 AM

I will not argue about gradient and curvature again but try to post again the theoretical experiment for determining straight or bendy light. It will not assume anything about the shape of the earth and doesn't depend on it.
  We need mirror and laser beam. Let's put mirror some 1500 meters away from laser. At first we adjust laser so that the beam returns to itself, to starting point. we mark the point at destination. Then we lift laser 5 degree up and measure the difference from the first point at the destination. We can then calculate the length of the AC because we know three angles and one side. The line AC or X would be about 131.23 meters if the light is going straight(we must also leave the room for some error, refraction). Point is that we can calculate the line AC with sufficient precision if light travels straight. If light is bending then we should get AC more longer from our calculated lenght. And it should increase with distance because light bends more in longer distances.

That diagram assumes the Earth is flat. If the Earth is not flat, then AB is not a straight line and AC will also be longer.

I said, it doesn't assume anything about the earth. You can measure the distance in whatever way you want and get the straight line. And if the Earth is not flat then the AB is quite straight, only the refraction "bends" it a little. But I said, we can leave the room for error and we get definitely  different result on straight and bendy light. With bendy light the error is much more larger. And it only increases more with the distance as with straight light it doesn't increase so much.

I said, it doesn't assume anything about the earth.

I know what you said. You were wrong.

And if the Earth is not flat then the AB is quite straight, only the refraction "bends" it a little.

The refraction bends the surface of the Earth?

But I said, we can leave the room for error and we get definitely  different result on straight and bendy light. With bendy light the error is much more larger. And it only increases more with the distance as with straight light it doesn't increase so much.

Since the curvature of light is probably not a secant function, I would have to agree with you there. However, I would only expect it to become noticeable at very large distances, at which point the light would be elevated by several kilometres at least. Can you propose a way of accurately measuring the height of a light ray several kilometres above the surface of the Earth?

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 05:22:06 AM

I said, it doesn't assume anything about the earth.

I know what you said. You were wrong.

No, I wasn't.

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 05:22:06 AM

And if the Earth is not flat then the AB is quite straight, only the refraction "bends" it a little.

The refraction bends the surface of the Earth?

AB isn't ground. It is light. I guess it's quite hard to read out things that are implied.

But I said, we can leave the room for error and we get definitely  different result on straight and bendy light. With bendy light the error is much more larger. And it only increases more with the distance as with straight light it doesn't increase so much.

Since the curvature of light is probably not a secant function, I would have to agree with you there. However, I would only expect it to become noticeable at very large distances, at which point the light would be elevated by several kilometres at least. Can you propose a way of accurately measuring the height of a light ray several kilometres above the surface of the Earth?
[/quote]
 Why several kilometers? The light bends near the ground as so called "experiment" with the laser beam shows. Exactly in same way as earth would curve down if it would be round. And quite noticeably.

AB isn't ground. It is light. I guess it's quite hard to read out things that are implied.

So you're comparing two laser beams to each other?

Why several kilometers? The light bends near the ground as so called "experiment" with the laser beam shows. Exactly in same way as earth would curve down if it would be round. And quite noticeably.

Yes, but both lasers would curve up, not just one. You'd need to measure it over quite a distance for there to be any difference observed between straight light on a RE and curved light on a FE.

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 05:51:28 AM

AB isn't ground. It is light. I guess it's quite hard to read out things that are implied.

So you're comparing two laser beams to each other?

No, I said that you take one laser and adjust it so that light returns back to it. We have then AB. There is nothing to do with the ground.

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 05:51:28 AM

Why several kilometers? The light bends near the ground as so called "experiment" with the laser beam shows. Exactly in same way as earth would curve down if it would be round. And quite noticeably.

Yes, but both lasers would curve up, not just one. You'd need to measure it over quite a distance for there to be any difference observed between straight light on a RE and curved light on a FE.

No. "Curving" of the straight light doesn't even get close to the bendy light curving. Only thing to "bend" straight light is refraction. But your bendy light curves 8 inches per first mile and then even more with every mile. It's quite big difference.

No, I said that you take one laser and adjust it so that light returns back to it. We have then AB. There is nothing to do with the ground.

Yes, so you're comparing two lasers, as I said.

No. "Curving" of the straight light doesn't even get close to the bendy light curving. Only thing to "bend" straight light is refraction. But your bendy light curves 8 inches per first mile and then even more with every mile. It's quite big difference.

If the light is curving, then BC will curve up, but so will AB by a similar amount. In order to notice a difference between straight and curved light, you would need to measure it over a very large distance.

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 06:05:46 AM

No, I said that you take one laser and adjust it so that light returns back to it. We have then AB. There is nothing to do with the ground.

Yes, so you're comparing two lasers, as I said.

I don't compare them. If laser beam reflects back to its starting point then it's straight line in the case of straight light. I don't know what it is in case of the bendy light. And how it can have incident and reflection angle being zero at the destination.

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2009, 06:05:46 AM

No. "Curving" of the straight light doesn't even get close to the bendy light curving. Only thing to "bend" straight light is refraction. But your bendy light curves 8 inches per first mile and then even more with every mile. It's quite big difference.

If the light is curving, then BC will curve up, but so will AB by a similar amount. In order to notice a difference between straight and curved light, you would need to measure it over a very large distance.

In order to notice discrepancies on calculated and measured values there is no need for so big distances. You can also measure the values(distance, angles) for the light which was reflected back at the 5 degree. I quite don't get how you would get all the angles right on your bendy light.
EDIT:
 And there is no lack of some large distances and heights in mountains. And I really like to see drawing how you get the angles like measured(5, 90, 85) with your bendy light where you have increasing gradient in the end. In both, first arrival at the destination and then the reflected back light.

I don't compare them.

Then what are you comparing the second laser to?

If laser beam reflects back to its starting point then it's straight line in the case of straight light. I don't know what it is in case of the bendy light.

A curved line.

And how it can have incident and reflection angle being zero at the destination.

By striking a reflecting surface perpendicular to its direction of propagation.

In order to notice discrepancies on calculated and measured values there is no need for so big distances. You can also measure the values(distance, angles) for the light which was reflected back at the 5 degree. I quite don't get how you would get all the angles right on your bendy light.

Quite simply, both beams are going to bend very similarly, so there will be much less discrepancy than if you were using a straight line as a reference. Therefore, longer distances are needed for the discrepancy to become noticeable. But of course, your first laser is irrelevant and can be omitted from the diagram altogether, because you have already stated that you are not comparing the beams.

And there is no lack of some large distances and heights in mountains.

I never said there was any shortage of large distances. How do you propose to accurately measure the difference in gradient of two light beams according to the triangle shown in your diagram?

And I really like to see drawing how you get the angles like measured(5, 90, 85) with your bendy light where you have increasing gradient in the end. In both, first arrival at the destination and then the reflected back light.

A new experiment for testing bendy light.
According to the flatter's theory, the amount of upward bend of light increases with distance travelled. Therefore, a beam of light travelling in one direction cannot possibly coincide with a beam of light travelling in the opposite direction. So here's how to test this.
Let's get two tall buildings, however far apart you want them to be, as long as you can see one from the other. On top of one you mount a green laser, on top of the other you mount a red laser.
You then point the lasers directly at each other, so the red laser hits the origin of the green laser, and vice versa.
According to round earth/straight light theory, both beams are following the same path to reach their destinations.
According to flat earth theory, the beams will have to be following different paths to reach their destinations, as the further from the origin the beam gets the greater the upward bend in the path.
So how can we tell what path the beams are following?
At any point along the beam, one can hold up a disc of translucent white plastic (either by crane, lowering from a helicopter, man with long stick, another building between the laser towers etc - doesn't matter how exactly).
If the light is travelling straight, wherever along the beam one holds up the disc, you will see both red and green light superimposed.
If the light is following a path of increasing upward curvature the further it goes, you will find that part way along the beam, the red and green lasers would not be superimposed on the disc.

If anyone has trouble following this, I'm sure Robosteve will draw you a diagram as he tells me he's an expert on experimental methods with light beams.

A new experiment for testing bendy light.
According to the flatter's theory, the amount of upward bend of light increases with distance travelled. Therefore, a beam of light travelling in one direction cannot possibly coincide with a beam of light travelling in the opposite direction. So here's how to test this.
Let's get two tall buildings, however far apart you want them to be, as long as you can see one from the other. On top of one you mount a green laser, on top of the other you mount a red laser.
You then point the lasers directly at each other, so the red laser hits the origin of the green laser, and vice versa.
According to round earth/straight light theory, both beams are following the same path to reach their destinations.
According to flat earth theory, the beams will have to be following different paths to reach their destinations, as the further from the origin the beam gets the greater the upward bend in the path.
So how can we tell what path the beams are following?
At any point along the beam, one can hold up a disc of translucent white plastic (either by crane, lowering from a helicopter, man with long stick, another building between the laser towers etc - doesn't matter how exactly).
If the light is travelling straight, wherever along the beam one holds up the disc, you will see both red and green light superimposed.
If the light is following a path of increasing upward curvature the further it goes, you will find that part way along the beam, the red and green lasers would not be superimposed on the disc.

If anyone has trouble following this, I'm sure Robosteve will draw you a diagram as he tells me he's an expert on experimental methods with light beams.

I would love to draw you a diagram, but I'm afraid I don't understand why the paths would necessarily be different. The path of a light ray between any two points, according to EA theory, is identical regardless of which direction the beam is travelling in.

the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

That's why. According to the bendy light theory, the beam will deviate away from horizontal more and more for each unit of distance travelled. After one mile, your light bends up slightly. After two miles it bends up more. After three miles it's bending up even further. End result is a more acute curvature towards the destination.
Therefore a beam travelling from Brighton to Newhaven cannot possibly be following the same path as a beam going from Newhaven to Brighton, as each will be following a steeper upward gradient at the destination than at the origin.
I'm beginning to wonder, for all your fancy maths, if you've ever sat down and drawn a proper diagram of the paths light would take.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 04, 2009, 04:19:42 PM

the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

That's why. According to the bendy light theory, the beam will deviate away from horizontal more and more for each unit of distance travelled. After one mile, your light bends up slightly. After two miles it bends up more. After three miles it's bending up even further.
Therefore a beam travelling from Brighton to Newhaven cannot possibly be following the same path as a beam going from Newhaven to Brighton, as each will be following a steeper upward gradient at the destination than at the origin.
I'm beginning to wonder, for all your fancy maths, if you've ever sat down and drawn a proper diagram of the paths light would take.

I'm beginning to wonder how you think two beams which both start out perfectly horizontal can be observed at the same altitude a substantial distance away, particularly being the RE believer that you are.

Quote from: KatiePipkin on September 04, 2009, 07:19:36 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on September 04, 2009, 04:19:42 PM

the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

That's why. According to the bendy light theory, the beam will deviate away from horizontal more and more for each unit of distance travelled. After one mile, your light bends up slightly. After two miles it bends up more. After three miles it's bending up even further.
Therefore a beam travelling from Brighton to Newhaven cannot possibly be following the same path as a beam going from Newhaven to Brighton, as each will be following a steeper upward gradient at the destination than at the origin.
I'm beginning to wonder, for all your fancy maths, if you've ever sat down and drawn a proper diagram of the paths light would take.

I'm beginning to wonder how you think two beams which both start out perfectly horizontal can be observed at the same altitude a substantial distance away, particularly being the RE believer that you are.

Uh... I never said they start out perfectly horizontal. When you have learned to read what people actually write in their posts, feel free to come back and contribute.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 04, 2009, 07:21:42 PM

Quote from: KatiePipkin on September 04, 2009, 07:19:36 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on September 04, 2009, 04:19:42 PM

the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

That's why. According to the bendy light theory, the beam will deviate away from horizontal more and more for each unit of distance travelled. After one mile, your light bends up slightly. After two miles it bends up more. After three miles it's bending up even further.
Therefore a beam travelling from Brighton to Newhaven cannot possibly be following the same path as a beam going from Newhaven to Brighton, as each will be following a steeper upward gradient at the destination than at the origin.
I'm beginning to wonder, for all your fancy maths, if you've ever sat down and drawn a proper diagram of the paths light would take.

I'm beginning to wonder how you think two beams which both start out perfectly horizontal can be observed at the same altitude a substantial distance away, particularly being the RE believer that you are.

Uh... I never said they start out perfectly horizontal. When you have learned to read what people actually write in their posts, feel free to come back and contribute.

Wow,

 Katie++;
 Robosteve--;

Quote from: Robosteve on September 04, 2009, 04:19:42 PM

the laser's gradient will change over a couple of miles with respect to the surface of the Earth.

That's why. According to the bendy light theory, the beam will deviate away from horizontal more and more for each unit of distance travelled. After one mile, your light bends up slightly. After two miles it bends up more. After three miles it's bending up even further. End result is a more acute curvature towards the destination.
Therefore a beam travelling from Brighton to Newhaven cannot possibly be following the same path as a beam going from Newhaven to Brighton, as each will be following a steeper upward gradient at the destination than at the origin.
I'm beginning to wonder, for all your fancy maths, if you've ever sat down and drawn a proper diagram of the paths light would take.

What is the problem if the path to and from is different?

Uh... I never said they start out perfectly horizontal. When you have learned to read what people actually write in their posts, feel free to come back and contribute.

I'm sorry, I assumed you understood EA theory. You said:

According to the bendy light theory, the beam will deviate away from horizontal more and more for each unit of distance travelled.

This statement only applies to light which is horizontal or travelling up.

There are no facts to RE. Our theory is better because no magical superforce is required to explain why we don't drift away.

So gravity doesn't exist but gravitation does?  Can you explain the difference and explain gravitation more so than we can explain gravity?

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).

If light doesn't bend in RET, explain our use of gravitational lensing?  In FET gravity bends even light, which is how we explain why we can't see black holes themselves.

Edit: Sorry for the "FET" typo.

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.

So gravity doesn't exist but gravitation does?  Can you explain the difference and explain gravitation more so than we can explain gravity?

Please read the gravity sticky.

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).

If light doesn't bend in FET, explain our use of gravitational lensing?  In FET gravity bends even light, which is how we explain why we can't see black holes themselves.

lolwut?