Scientific work and repeatable experiment about FE done in last 20 years

It affects the work I do since I have to work with the ellipsoidal shape of the Earth to keep roads aligned and measurements parallel to that ellipsoid in long distances.

That's a good point, my dad is a civil engineer, he has to do the same when designing highways and such.  How is the government getting to his head and making him think he has to do these calculations?  Why do the projects end up looking right when his plans are followed?

Quote from: RJM on February 22, 2009, 03:56:24 AM

It affects the work I do since I have to work with the ellipsoidal shape of the Earth to keep roads aligned and measurements parallel to that ellipsoid in long distances.

That's a good point, my dad is a civil engineer, he has to do the same when designing highways and such.  How is the government getting to his head and making him think he has to do these calculations?  Why do the projects end up looking right when his plans are followed?

I'm a civil engineer who designs highways.  Does that mean they're in my head too?  Aaaagh!!!

I took a laser, leveled it and shot it at a building. My friend marked the spot and we calculated the light was higher then where it was first "shot" (we used proper equipment and technique to measure height of course). Thus light bends upwards proving bendy light.

I don't believe in that kind of stuff. This was different. It's not paranoia when someone you've never met threatens you in public.

Based on what you report he said, he did not threaten you. It is paranoia when you conclude that two sentences that did not involve a threat or anything about FE means that the RE Conspiracy is out to harm you. You seem to continue your activities in support of FE unabated--except when your action might force you to reconsider FE. That would definitely make you paranoid, by the clinical definition.

Ok, provide an alternative explanation, given all that I have said.

Ok, provide an alternative explanation, given all that I have said.

You offended the man for some other reason than your FE evangelism, maybe for a reason through no fault of your own. He decided to scare you and was successful. You and your friends may simply support the wrong football team in his football team's section of town. There are literally millions of reasons. Since you didn't ask, you shouldn't guess, especially so wildly.

I do not live in Gothenburg. I had only been there for a few weeks- about a month and a half I think. As I've explained, he wasn't from Sweden either. Neither of us was a local. There is literally no way I could have offended him. I didn't reall know anyone at that point either, so I wasn't 'associating' with anyone.

I do not live in Gothenburg. I had only been there for a few weeks- about a month and a half I think. As I've explained, he wasn't from Sweden either. Neither of us was a local. There is literally no way I could have offended him. I didn't reall know anyone at that point either, so I wasn't 'associating' with anyone.

If you believe that any person needs more than six weeks to become offended by your talking more than once to same person to make that stupid and childish comment, you need to re-evaluate your take on human nature. You can't possibly know that he wasn't from Sweden. You can't possibly know that he wasn't local. You have two whole spoken sentences and a few minutes, at most, to make your conclusions. You can't possibly know that he was with the RE Conspiracy. You can't possibly know that he was rational. You can't possibly know that he wasn't a prankster. You jump right over better (as in more likely) possibilities to the one that allows your avoiding the poster's challenge.

Please you need to better vet your conclusions, about both this paranoid conclusion and your decision that FE is a better model than RE.

I keep my views on FET very much to myself, and I am, in my humble opinion, a quiet and generally amiable person. i never get into arguments with people, I rarely drink, and have never been drunk to the point where I would say anything that could offend someone. I have lived in Sweden for quite a long time, and I can tell you for absolute certain that this man was not Swedish, because his accent was extremely strong. Swedish people have a very distinctive accent when speaking English, and his was totally different.

This was a well dressed, presentable man. He had a nice coat, nice shoes- he wasn't some nutjob. It's possible he was a prankster, but why would he speak English rather than Swedish? I was alone, so he couldn't have heard me speaking. There is nothing less likely than it being a random act, and I can think of nothing which would provoke anyone I had met to follow me and do this in a public area. It simply doesn't make sense.

I keep my views on FET very much to myself, and I am, in my humble opinion, a quiet and generally amiable person. i never get into arguments with people, I rarely drink, and have never been drunk to the point where I would say anything that could offend someone. I have lived in Sweden for quite a long time, and I can tell you for absolute certain that this man was not Swedish, because his accent was extremely strong. Swedish people have a very distinctive accent when speaking English, and his was totally different.

This was a well dressed, presentable man. He had a nice coat, nice shoes- he wasn't some nutjob. It's possible he was a prankster, but why would he speak English rather than Swedish? I was alone, so he couldn't have heard me speaking. There is nothing less likely than it being a random act, and I can think of nothing which would provoke anyone I had met to follow me and do this in a public area. It simply doesn't make sense.

Here's some more problems with your ability to make reasonable conclusions...

How someone speaks does not determine their country of residence.

How someone dresses does not determine their mental health.

Being unable to find a reason to have provoked some does not mean, by any means, that you did not provoke someone. The man may have misunderstood. You may have forgotten talking to his wife. You may have bought the wrong color hat.

Let's agree that it was a random act as you declare most likely. I encourage you to see that 1) FE was not mentioned, 2) the act was random--as in not having a cause, and 3) there was no threat. I encourage you to see that you can't use this event to change your decisions. There are many books that help you learn to disregard useless data and to reason effectively. You're using useless data to justify what you're afraid to do. Don't be afraid to test FE. If you're right, you'll have gained evidence. Regardless of the outcome, you'll have faced the shadows and won.

I took a laser, leveled it and shot it at a building. My friend marked the spot and we calculated the light was higher then where it was first "shot" (we used proper equipment and technique to measure height of course). Thus light bends upwards proving bendy light.

"proper equipment and technique"?  More detail needed, for example what equipment did you use, at what elevation did you set up your equipment, how did you measure the elevation, how far away was the building you aimed at, how did you measure the elevation at the target, how did you measure the distance from equipment to target, etc.

Depending on how far away the building was that you aimed the laser at, the point at which the laser struck the building would be higher on the building on a round earth that it is on the building at which the laser was located owing to the fact that the laser would describe a tangent to the surface of the earth.  Over reasonably short distances though, this difference would be negligible and could be accounted for in errors in equipment, use of the equipment, etc.  If you got a big difference in height I would suggest that either your equipment or technique might not be as "proper" as you assert.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 03, 2009, 09:55:08 PM

I took a laser, leveled it and shot it at a building. My friend marked the spot and we calculated the light was higher then where it was first "shot" (we used proper equipment and technique to measure height of course). Thus light bends upwards proving bendy light.

"proper equipment and technique"?  More detail needed, for example what equipment did you use, at what elevation did you set up your equipment, how did you measure the elevation, how far away was the building you aimed at, how did you measure the elevation at the target, how did you measure the distance from equipment to target, etc.

Depending on how far away the building was that you aimed the laser at, the point at which the laser struck the building would be higher on the building on a round earth that it is on the building at which the laser was located owing to the fact that the laser would describe a tangent to the surface of the earth.  Over reasonably short distances though, this difference would be negligible and could be accounted for in errors in equipment, use of the equipment, etc.  If you got a big difference in height I would suggest that either your equipment or technique might not be as "proper" as you assert.

I believe you missed the poster satire. The experiment proves RE convincingly, unless you subscribe to the FE-admittedly-defeated theory of bendy light. (The theory failed to be self-consistent and suffered a languishing death.)

Quote from: niceguybut on March 04, 2009, 08:53:09 AM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 03, 2009, 09:55:08 PM

I took a laser, leveled it and shot it at a building. My friend marked the spot and we calculated the light was higher then where it was first "shot" (we used proper equipment and technique to measure height of course). Thus light bends upwards proving bendy light.

"proper equipment and technique"?  More detail needed, for example what equipment did you use, at what elevation did you set up your equipment, how did you measure the elevation, how far away was the building you aimed at, how did you measure the elevation at the target, how did you measure the distance from equipment to target, etc.

Depending on how far away the building was that you aimed the laser at, the point at which the laser struck the building would be higher on the building on a round earth that it is on the building at which the laser was located owing to the fact that the laser would describe a tangent to the surface of the earth.  Over reasonably short distances though, this difference would be negligible and could be accounted for in errors in equipment, use of the equipment, etc.  If you got a big difference in height I would suggest that either your equipment or technique might not be as "proper" as you assert.

I believe you missed the poster satire. The experiment proves RE convincingly, unless you subscribe to the FE-admittedly-defeated theory of bendy light. (The theory failed to be self-consistent and suffered a languishing death.)

Quite possibly, the post sounds a bit Rowbotham-esque.  I hope the bendy light theory has gone away, the joke wore off.