A Discussion of Bendy Light

No, I just do triangle and measure the angles. There is nothing to compare. I still don't get the importance of the comparing from your side.

A triangle formed from two different lines. By constructing a triangle from them and measuring the angles between them, you are comparing them.

How? If you start with the position 1 then at destination your light direction would be 2 and at last if you go far enough you go straight up as 3. And if your light ahs direction as in 2 then you can't have incident angle zero.

Yes you can. The mirror just needs to be perpendicular to the light at the point where it reflects.

"Not necessarily" isn't enough. I really want to know how you get 90 degree(incident and reflection zero) angle at the destination with the bendy light. It's definitely not 90 on your deformed triangle.

By placing a mirror perpendicular to the light ray.

Shortly, your bendy light acts exactly as straight light, so, it is straight light. You have no experiments or observations to show otherwise.

If the light is curved, then it does not behave the same way straight light would, and is not straight.

Quote from: zork on September 11, 2009, 07:02:38 AM

No, I just do triangle and measure the angles. There is nothing to compare. I still don't get the importance of the comparing from your side.

A triangle formed from two different lines. By constructing a triangle from them and measuring the angles between them, you are comparing them.

I can't understand your way of thinking. I don't compare them but if you think that I am then I can't help it.

Quote from: zork on September 11, 2009, 07:02:38 AM

How? If you start with the position 1 then at destination your light direction would be 2 and at last if you go far enough you go straight up as 3. And if your light ahs direction as in 2 then you can't have incident angle zero.

Yes you can. The mirror just needs to be perpendicular to the light at the point where it reflects.

Yes, you can. But how is the mirror in regarding with the ground then. Not perpendicular but parallel at last.

Quote from: zork on September 11, 2009, 07:02:38 AM

"Not necessarily" isn't enough. I really want to know how you get 90 degree(incident and reflection zero) angle at the destination with the bendy light. It's definitely not 90 on your deformed triangle.

By placing a mirror perpendicular to the light ray.

 And if you have two mirrors perpendicular with the light then you have two parallel mirrors. You can't have that with bendy light. Bendy light curves and if you want to put it perpendicular with the light then you put it in tilt regarding the other mirror. I just want to know how can you get two parallel mirrors which are perpendicular to the light and in same time you have light that is bending. Draw me two parallel mirrors and curved line with the 90 degrees angle at the both points.

Quote from: zork on September 11, 2009, 07:02:38 AM

Shortly, your bendy light acts exactly as straight light, so, it is straight light. You have no experiments or observations to show otherwise.

If the light is curved, then it does not behave the same way straight light would, and is not straight.

If the light is curved. But you fail to show difference about this light behavior.  All light behaves exactly as straight light is supposed to behave. You have yet to show how light bends. All you do is argue that how it is impossible to see the difference between  the bendy light and the straight light.

Yes, you can. But how is the mirror in regarding with the ground then. Not perpendicular but parallel at last.

Irrelevant. You said before that:

It will not assume anything about the shape of the earth and doesn't depend on it.

Therefore, you cannot use the ground as any sort of reference.

And if you have two mirrors perpendicular with the light then you have two parallel mirrors. You can't have that with bendy light. Bendy light curves and if you want to put it perpendicular with the light then you put it in tilt regarding the other mirror. I just want to know how can you get two parallel mirrors which are perpendicular to the light and in same time you have light that is bending. Draw me two parallel mirrors and curved line with the 90 degrees angle at the both points.

You can't.

If the light is curved. But you fail to show difference about this light behavior.  All light behaves exactly as straight light is supposed to behave. You have yet to show how light bends. All you do is argue that how it is impossible to see the difference between  the bendy light and the straight light.

This argument applies both ways. You could equally well say that straight light behaves exactly the same as you would expect bendy light to behave, therefore straight light is the same thing as bendy light.

This argument applies both ways. You could equally well say that straight light behaves exactly the same as you would expect bendy light to behave, therefore straight light is the same thing as bendy light.

Yep. Which leaves you the problem of proving that light bends.

Much like your argument that a flat earth would appear the same as a round earth,  you still leave open the possibility for both.

Of course we all know light doesn't bend, and any equations to attempt to prove it bends would fail to reach any resolution.

Yep. Which leaves you the problem of proving that light bends.

I think the burden is on REers to prove that it travels in straight lines. Why assume that it forms a perfectly straight line, when a more general statement would be that it has some degree of curvature, possibly zero?

I think the burden is on REers to prove that it travels in straight lines. Why assume that it forms a perfectly straight line, when a more general statement would be that it has some degree of curvature, possibly zero?

1) Because you can't resolve to the source of light
2) Because light somehow needs to have intelligent properties
3) Because there are proven laws in physics which say it doesn't bend (as you require)

1) Because you can't resolve to the source of light
2) Because light somehow needs to have intelligent properties
3) Because there are proven laws in physics which say it doesn't bend (as you require)

1) What does this even mean?
2) No it doesn't.
3) Which laws would they be?

Quote from: Crustinator on September 12, 2009, 04:12:31 AM

1) Because you can't resolve to the source of light
2) Because light somehow needs to have intelligent properties
3) Because there are proven laws in physics which say it doesn't bend (as you require)

1) What does this even mean?
2) No it doesn't.
3) Which laws would they be?

1) You can't triangulate under the bendy light principle.
2) Yes it does.
3) Gauss, Faraday, Ampere, Maxwell, Snell...

1) You can't triangulate under the bendy light principle.
2) Yes it does.
3) Gauss, Faraday, Ampere, Maxwell, Snell...

1) That depends which plane you are trying to triangulate within.
2) No it doesn't.
3) Einstein.

*sigh*

Your replies are just gibberish now. Einstein doesn't even enter the scenario (but I like your distraction techniques), you clearly don't understand half of what you're suggesting.

"That depends which plane you are trying to triangulate within." Yeah. Whatever.

Your replies are just gibberish now.

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

Einstein doesn't even enter the scenario (but I like your distraction techniques), you clearly don't understand half of what you're suggesting.

Einstein was the one who pointed out that light will trace out a curved path in non-inertial frames of reference.

"That depends which plane you are trying to triangulate within." Yeah. Whatever.

I like your debate technique. After all, how is one's opponent supposed to come up with any sort of intelligent response to "Yeah. Whatever."?

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

You can lead a fool to thought but you can't make him think.

Einstein was the one who pointed out that light will trace out a curved path in non-inertial frames of reference.

I know. Neat huh?

I like your debate technique. After all, how is one's opponent supposed to come up with any sort of intelligent response to "Yeah. Whatever."?

How is anyone supposed to come up with any sort intelligent response to "That depends which plane you are trying to triangulate within."

Glib truisms are glib truisms.

I know. Neat huh?

So you admit that your argument holds no water.

How is anyone supposed to come up with any sort intelligent response to "That depends which plane you are trying to triangulate within."

Glib truisms are glib truisms.

You can triangulate within the horizontal plane using light rays, because light only bends vertically.

Quote from: Crustinator on September 12, 2009, 05:43:31 AM

I know. Neat huh?

So you admit that your argument holds no water.

Not at all.

You can triangulate within the horizontal plane using light rays, because light only bends vertically.

No it doesn't bend at all.

But anyway such a triangulation mechanism wouldn't work, since ultimately all your positionals will resolve to the infinite.

Not at all.

Which of the following two statements do you disagree with?

1) "All of the physical laws which conclude that light travels in straight lines only apply in inertial frames of reference, since Einstein showed that light curves in non-inertial frames of reference."
2) "We are in a non-inertial frame of reference."

But anyway such a triangulation mechanism wouldn't work, since ultimately all your positionals will resolve to the infinite.

Could you elaborate?

Good old false choice dilemma...

In the RE world, while we may be in a non-inertial frame of reference it's effect on light is negligible, certainly not producing the effect you require for "bendy light". To all intents and purposes, when describing light at the surface of the earth, it's an inertial frame.

In the FE universe everything is accelerating at the same rate, making resolution to inertial even simpler and more valid.

Could you elaborate?

You need to think about how your light bends, and how you would locate its source. There's no written maths for bendy light but I suspect it contains infinite derivatives. Not good for resolution.

just for clarification, is ea (or whatever causes bendy light) isotropic?

I didn't read through this whole thread, because the discussion on page 2-3 was bothering me.

They were discussing if a straight line on a piece of paper, when bending the paper, is still a straight line.

FEers said no, REers said yes. So let's see what makes sense!

Now, FEers might be able to make some sense of what I'm about to say. Let's pretend there is a world of people called FLATLANDERS, that live on a 2D plane on a piece of paper. How they see things is quite different than what we see. A circle to them, appears as a line that appears as a dot, and slowly gets wider. Now, if you were to bend the piece of paper, it would have NO effect to them. You could bend the paper, twist and, and attach it, making a moebius strip, and they wouldn't know. Now, apply the same thing to OUR 3rd dimension. Take it and bend it through the 4th SPACIAL dimension. (To avoid talks about '4th dimension is time'). I know that we can't PHYSICALLY do this, but there is plenty of math for n dimensions. We wouldn't observe "bendy light" because it isn't there.

Now, FEers might be able to make some sense of what I'm about to say. Let's pretend there is a world of people called FLATLANDERS, that live on a 2D plane on a piece of paper. How they see things is quite different than what we see. A circle to them, appears as a line that appears as a dot, and slowly gets wider. Now, if you were to bend the piece of paper, it would have NO effect to them. You could bend the paper, twist and, and attach it, making a moebius strip, and they wouldn't know. Now, apply the same thing to OUR 3rd dimension. Take it and bend it through the 4th SPACIAL dimension. (To avoid talks about '4th dimension is time'). I know that we can't PHYSICALLY do this, but there is plenty of math for n dimensions. We wouldn't observe "bendy light" because it isn't there.

The curvature of space within higher order spatial dimensions has nothing to do with EA theory.

Did you ignore the first part of the thread?

Also, the only time I've ever observed bendy light, it was caused by gravity. Since FEers don't believe in gravity, well...

Did you ignore the first part of the thread?

Also, the only time I've ever observed bendy light, it was caused by gravity. Since FEers don't believe in gravity, well...

The first part of the thread has nothing to do with EA theory, either, which also has nothing to do with gravity.

Quote from: SupahLovah on September 21, 2009, 07:50:44 AM

Did you ignore the first part of the thread?

Also, the only time I've ever observed bendy light, it was caused by gravity. Since FEers don't believe in gravity, well...

The first part of the thread has nothing to do with EA theory, either, which also has nothing to do with gravity.

I was talking about bendy light, what are you talking about?

I was talking about bendy light, what are you talking about?

Bendy light, as described by EA theory.

Links to resources, please? I'd like to read about it, but reading through the FAQs doesn't provide much.

Links to resources, please? I'd like to read about it, but reading through the FAQs doesn't provide much.

It's still very much a developing theory, and as such there is no cohesive documentation which describes it. But here are some threads which give the basic idea:

The original thread on the subject: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0

A more recent thread, giving some more mathematical detail: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30679.0

I was hoping it'd make sense, but it basically says "Here's an unfinished equation. beta could be anything."

I'm not done reading, but thanks.

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

Oh wow OP
so RET has no facts?
so I guess the work of all the amateur and professional
mathematicians, astronomers, and geologists for the past 2k
years have been just making it up, huh? Never mind
geniuses such as Einstein, Hawkings, and Newton.
after all, the latter most only did silly things like invent calculus.

And Gravity is not magic. it is force that simply the attraction
of matter. it is no more mysterious than electromagnetism.
just because the maths of gravity is beyond most people, does not
make it impossible. furthermore, gravity has a ton of evidence behind it.

your theory says that universal acceleration causes the gravity effect,
yet UA fails to note the variability of the gravitational force on different parts
of the earth

Quote from: zork on September 11, 2009, 09:15:28 AM

If the light is curved. But you fail to show difference about this light behavior.  All light behaves exactly as straight light is supposed to behave. You have yet to show how light bends. All you do is argue that how it is impossible to see the difference between  the bendy light and the straight light.

This argument applies both ways. You could equally well say that straight light behaves exactly the same as you would expect bendy light to behave, therefore straight light is the same thing as bendy light.

You still complain that you can't make out what is straight light and what is bendy light. Let's get facts straight. Light travels straight in homogeneous environment. It's proven and if you are going to ask when and how then only reaction is... WHAT? And only place where we reach is that you really must learn physics and stop asking all others to prove all proven physics to you again and again and again. Light travels straight until proven otherwise by you or anyone else because in current day anybody doesn't have any experiments or observations about light bending. So, baseline is straight light and we can only go further from there.

Light travels straight until proven otherwise

Light does not travel straight by default.

Quote from: zork on October 19, 2009, 11:02:02 PM

Light travels straight until proven otherwise

Light does not travel straight by default.

Of course it does.  Light only bends due to refraction, gravitational lensing or whatever influence the EA provides.