I heard the earth is spherical? :/

That's what it did for me.

That's what it did for me.

Of course, you've already demonstrated that you didn't know HOW to run the experiment, so claiming that you did now is pointless.

I was taking the piss, like you are.

If light does bend, then the beam will eventually deviate from the designated angles you set on the mirrors.

See, that's an unwarranted assumption.  It's already been stated that the effect is only detectable over long distances and a lot of accumulated short distances would not necessarily equate to the same thing.

Quote from: ragnarr on March 15, 2009, 09:02:38 AM

If light does bend, then the beam will eventually deviate from the designated angles you set on the mirrors.

See, that's an unwarranted assumption.  It's already been stated that the effect is only detectable over long distances and a lot of accumulated short distances would not necessarily equate to the same thing.

Optics (the science) fully supports the assumption. Do we need to throw out the mirror equivalence just to believe in a FE? If so, we can just move right along with the conclusion that RE is the better model.

See, that's an unwarranted assumption.  It's already been stated that the effect is only detectable over long distances and a lot of accumulated short distances would not necessarily equate to the same thing.

If I drive my car back and forward along the same 100m route, after 5 journeys there and back I should have travelled 1km correct?

How does this differ from travelling once along a 1km route?

You're right back where you started and probably travelled more than 1km.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 10:50:11 AM

See, that's an unwarranted assumption.  It's already been stated that the effect is only detectable over long distances and a lot of accumulated short distances would not necessarily equate to the same thing.

If I drive my car back and forward along the same 100m route, after 5 journeys there and back I should have travelled 1km correct?

How does this differ from travelling once along a 1km route?

Well, you would have used more gas.  Going back and forth instead of traveling the whole distance at once changed the outcome of the trip.

Being exact with distances, 1km total was travelled in each scenario. Relative position is of no concern to the experiments proposed eariler in this forum, neither is fuel consumption.

Being exact with distances, 1km total was travelled in each scenario. Relative position is of no concern to the experiments proposed eariler in this forum, neither is fuel consumption.

I'm not arguing that the distance changes at all.  I'm arguing that the atmosphere affects our perception of its position over a long distance.

I'm not arguing that the distance changes at all.  I'm arguing that the atmosphere affects our perception of its position over a long distance.

So another method other than our own perception must be used to determine how light reacts over long ditances?

Such is the inherent flaw of science.

By that assumption, we can never prove anything. The earth could be floating on a f*****g tea tray in a fat mans bathtub.

Such is the inherent flaw of science.

That isn't an assumption, however, it's pretty much a logical certainty.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 14, 2009, 06:06:36 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 14, 2009, 05:38:01 PM

Why would the earth bend downward?

Not sure. The simplest explanation is that light bends upwards because that's what's observed when one shines a laser beam over a long distance.

Patently false. You should not assume anything about the Earth. You don't need to know the distance above the Earth to measure your result. Just measure the change independent of the Earth.

Here's how to falsify "bendy" light easily (I know I'm repeating what other REers have already told you.)

Hypothesis: Light curves upwards in the atmolayer of the Earth.
Design: Use a common laser. Level it. Shine it through a half-silvered mirror at 45^o one inch away and then one mile onto a mirror. Adjust the mirror until the laser light from both paths lie at the same point. Measure the angle the mirror forms with the laser.
Result: 90^o
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Preemptive answer: Yes, Tom, I and every college physics student did this exact experiment in the lab we had to take to measure the speed of light.

You had a lab one mile long in college?

Funny you should mention that some of the guys i know have one 2 miles long.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 10:30:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 14, 2009, 06:06:36 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 14, 2009, 05:38:01 PM

Why would the earth bend downward?

Not sure. The simplest explanation is that light bends upwards because that's what's observed when one shines a laser beam over a long distance.

Patently false. You should not assume anything about the Earth. You don't need to know the distance above the Earth to measure your result. Just measure the change independent of the Earth.

Here's how to falsify "bendy" light easily (I know I'm repeating what other REers have already told you.)

Hypothesis: Light curves upwards in the atmolayer of the Earth.
Design: Use a common laser. Level it. Shine it through a half-silvered mirror at 45^o one inch away and then one mile onto a mirror. Adjust the mirror until the laser light from both paths lie at the same point. Measure the angle the mirror forms with the laser.
Result: 90^o
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Preemptive answer: Yes, Tom, I and every college physics student did this exact experiment in the lab we had to take to measure the speed of light.

You had a lab one mile long in college?

Asked and answered. Do pay attention please.

Quote from: ragnarr on March 15, 2009, 09:02:38 AM

If light does bend, then the beam will eventually deviate from the designated angles you set on the mirrors.

See, that's an unwarranted assumption.  It's already been stated that the effect is only detectable over long distances and a lot of accumulated short distances would not necessarily equate to the same thing.

It is only detectable over a long distance, which means there must be an undetectable change over a short distance.  If you accumulate several short distances of reflection, each with a very slight deviation(light bending), eventually the light will have a detectable effect over short distance.

Or you could still just use one mirror with a laser 1 mile away.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 14, 2009, 05:38:01 PM

Why would the earth bend downward?

Not sure. The simplest explanation is that light bends upwards because that's what's observed when one shines a laser beam over a long distance.

Shine it parallel to the ground and look directly along it, and you will see it remains straight.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 10:30:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 14, 2009, 06:06:36 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 14, 2009, 05:38:01 PM

Why would the earth bend downward?

Not sure. The simplest explanation is that light bends upwards because that's what's observed when one shines a laser beam over a long distance.

Patently false. You should not assume anything about the Earth. You don't need to know the distance above the Earth to measure your result. Just measure the change independent of the Earth.

Here's how to falsify "bendy" light easily (I know I'm repeating what other REers have already told you.)

Hypothesis: Light curves upwards in the atmolayer of the Earth.
Design: Use a common laser. Level it. Shine it through a half-silvered mirror at 45^o one inch away and then one mile onto a mirror. Adjust the mirror until the laser light from both paths lie at the same point. Measure the angle the mirror forms with the laser.
Result: 90^o
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.

Preemptive answer: Yes, Tom, I and every college physics student did this exact experiment in the lab we had to take to measure the speed of light.

You had a lab one mile long in college?

This is a lab that is 2 miles long: http://www6.slac.stanford.edu/AboutSLAC.aspx

Yes, it is not set up to examine whether or not light bends, but if it did bend, then this accelerator would not work. Plus, if you look at photos of this lab, you can see down the 2 mile length and it is perfectly straight - see here: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/slac_vanish.jpg

looks damn straight to me. Light does not bend.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 11:43:45 AM

I'm not arguing that the distance changes at all.  I'm arguing that the atmosphere affects our perception of its position over a long distance.

So another method other than our own perception must be used to determine how light reacts over long ditances?

Holy whore holes Batman!  I think I have just the thing!

So at sea level, the horizon is 3 miles away. You're saying light bends enough to be noticed over 3 miles but not over 1 mile?

So at sea level, the horizon is 3 miles away. You're saying light bends enough to be noticed over 3 miles but not over 1 mile?

That's right.  We can even form an equation based on this very observation so we can approximate the path the light has taken during that 3 mile distance.  Of course we'd need some more accurate data for the calculation to be more than a very rough estimate.  It would be best if we had more than one point of data.
An example would be to find an offshore platform of known distance from shore and height above sea level and note how much is visible from different heights at the same point on the shore.  Having access to a scissor lift, or cherry picker would be ideal for such an experiment.

Quote from: TheEarthIsACube on March 18, 2009, 08:20:48 AM

So at sea level, the horizon is 3 miles away. You're saying light bends enough to be noticed over 3 miles but not over 1 mile?

That's right.  We can even form an equation based on this very observation so we can approximate the path the light has taken during that 3 mile distance.  Of course we'd need some more accurate data for the calculation to be more than a very rough estimate.  It would be best if we had more than one point of data.
An example would be to find an offshore platform of known distance from shore and height above sea level and note how much is visible from different heights at the same point on the shore.  Having access to a scissor lift, or cherry picker would be ideal for such an experiment.

Excuse, but every day this experiment is done by people moving between floors tall buildings of our port cities.

Actually, the light rays bend because God tells them to. JK. Small crystals in the air reflect light in an upwards direction. An indoor expirement would fail as these crystals are only outside.

in the photo edtheran linked to: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/slac_vanish.jpg

one might notice how the floor apears to be higher in the distance, yet the fe model would suggest it should appear to sink lower instead since there should be no reason light would behave differently outside than inside

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 18, 2009, 04:28:11 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsACube on March 18, 2009, 08:20:48 AM

So at sea level, the horizon is 3 miles away. You're saying light bends enough to be noticed over 3 miles but not over 1 mile?

That's right.  We can even form an equation based on this very observation so we can approximate the path the light has taken during that 3 mile distance.  Of course we'd need some more accurate data for the calculation to be more than a very rough estimate.  It would be best if we had more than one point of data.
An example would be to find an offshore platform of known distance from shore and height above sea level and note how much is visible from different heights at the same point on the shore.  Having access to a scissor lift, or cherry picker would be ideal for such an experiment.

Excuse, but every day this experiment is done by people moving between floors tall buildings of our port cities.

And what data have these great scientists collected?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 05:08:07 PM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 18, 2009, 04:28:11 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsACube on March 18, 2009, 08:20:48 AM

So at sea level, the horizon is 3 miles away. You're saying light bends enough to be noticed over 3 miles but not over 1 mile?

That's right.  We can even form an equation based on this very observation so we can approximate the path the light has taken during that 3 mile distance.  Of course we'd need some more accurate data for the calculation to be more than a very rough estimate.  It would be best if we had more than one point of data.
An example would be to find an offshore platform of known distance from shore and height above sea level and note how much is visible from different heights at the same point on the shore.  Having access to a scissor lift, or cherry picker would be ideal for such an experiment.

Excuse, but every day this experiment is done by people moving between floors tall buildings of our port cities.

And what data have these great scientists collected?

Again, you attack a strawman. I never said great scientists were involved, for example.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 19, 2009, 05:22:58 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 18, 2009, 05:08:07 PM

Quote from: EnigmaZV on March 18, 2009, 04:28:11 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsACube on March 18, 2009, 08:20:48 AM

So at sea level, the horizon is 3 miles away. You're saying light bends enough to be noticed over 3 miles but not over 1 mile?

That's right.  We can even form an equation based on this very observation so we can approximate the path the light has taken during that 3 mile distance.  Of course we'd need some more accurate data for the calculation to be more than a very rough estimate.  It would be best if we had more than one point of data.
An example would be to find an offshore platform of known distance from shore and height above sea level and note how much is visible from different heights at the same point on the shore.  Having access to a scissor lift, or cherry picker would be ideal for such an experiment.

Excuse, but every day this experiment is done by people moving between floors tall buildings of our port cities.

And what data have these great scientists collected?

Again, you attack a strawman. I never said great scientists were involved, for example.

Well, I wasn't attacking a strawman, I was being sarcastic, to emphasize the fact that you incorrectly stated their activities as "experiments".