RE Picture Proof

Ok first we will address my pride.  How is it in anyway obvious that light must travel down before it can bend up?  I think if you took a poll and asked people why the bottom of the building isn't seen last, you will find that the "light has to travel down first" school of thought will be a very unobvious answer.

Second, there is a very very easy (yet expensive) way to test that idea.  Go out in the ocean to where the bottom the building isn't visible.  Get into your helicopter and fly straight up.  If the bottom of the building reveals itself to you, then the light from the bottom of the building did not hit the earth and stop.

Uh, no. In order to get from the building to you - keeping in mind that the building and yourself are at the same altitude - it would need to travel down so that when it bends up, it goes towards you and not over your head. If you fly up, the light from the bottom of the building travelling horizontally will have bent up above the ground, and it will then become visible.

Ok, bear with me.  I am trying to understand this.  Some light off a building will go down and stop when it hits the earth so that you can't see it far away.  Some light goes straight out and bends up so that you can see it in a chopper.  Is that right?  If so, then I amend my experiment to include a powerful laser pointer.  Place the laser pointer in the top of the building and move the ship out to sea until the laser is on the boat.  Move the boat and fly the chopper up and out until it has the pointer on it.  Use the two locations and time them to see if the distance is constant with the speed of light.  If not, then the light took extra time bending and you have proved the earth is flat.


Another experiment: Take the laser to the top of the building.  Point the laser at the furthest thing you can see.  Find the distance to that point.  Get the angles of the triangle you just made (height of building, laser, distance from bottom of building to point).  If it's a true triangle then all the angles will add up to 180 degrees.  If on the other hand, the light from the laser has bent upwards, then the angles will not add up and you have made history.

Ok, bear with me.  I am trying to understand this.  Some light off a building will go down and stop when it hits the earth so that you can't see it far away.  Some light goes straight out and bends up so that you can see it in a chopper.  Is that right?  If so, then I amend my experiment to include a powerful laser pointer.  Place the laser pointer in the top of the building and move the ship out to sea until the laser is on the boat.  Move the boat and fly the chopper up and out until it has the pointer on it.  Use the two locations and time them to see if the distance is constant with the speed of light.  If not, then the light took extra time bending and you have proved the earth is flat.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to describe here. Any chance of a diagram?

Another experiment: Take the laser to the top of the building.  Point the laser at the furthest thing you can see.  Find the distance to that point.  Get the angles of the triangle you just made (height of building, laser, distance from bottom of building to point).  If it's a true triangle then all the angles will add up to 180 degrees.  If on the other hand, the light from the laser has bent upwards, then the angles will not add up and you have made history.

Except that if the Earth is round, one of the sides of the triangle (that which corresponds to the surface of the Earth) will not be straight either.

There are two components to Dark Energy. We are shielded from one of them by the Earth; the other is unaffected by ordinary matter and only affects electromagnetic radiation.

Oh well that would contradict what you said here...

Dark energy bends light rays upward, just as it pushes matter upward.

are you making this up as you go along?

Maybe what you meant to say was

"The Dark Energy Light Accelerator bends light rays upward, just as the Dark Energy Mass Accelerator doesn't push matter upward (we're shielded remember)"

Out of interest, how do you know they are two parts of the same element? I assume there's some kind of observed interaction is there?

Quote from: Robosteve on April 15, 2009, 01:32:15 PM

There are two components to Dark Energy. We are shielded from one of them by the Earth; the other is unaffected by ordinary matter and only affects electromagnetic radiation.

Oh well that would contradict what you said here...

Quote from: Robosteve on April 15, 2009, 01:47:12 AM

Dark energy bends light rays upward, just as it pushes matter upward.

I don't see how. They are both features of the same phenomenon.

are you making this up as you go along?

No. I have stated all this several times before, in fact.

Out of interest, how do you know they are two parts of the same element? I assume there's some kind of observed interaction is there?

They both act in the same direction. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there's some underlying reason why the Earth just happens to accelerate in the same direction as light bends.

Quote from: goober1223 on April 15, 2009, 02:52:29 PM

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated. by Dark Energy, don't you?

FTFY

Oh, and this is what was said a couple of posts down from that:

Quote from: Waste of Mind on April 15, 2009, 03:29:19 PM

Quote from: goober1223 on April 15, 2009, 02:52:29 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 15, 2009, 01:32:15 PM

Quote from: TheSphericalist on April 15, 2009, 08:44:19 AM

Do you even have proof of this "dark energy"?  Sources please...oh and maybe point out the information so I don't have to read book length text to find your "proof".

Get into an aeroplane, fly a few thousand metres off the ground, then jump out the door. I assure you, the effects of Dark Energy will become quite evident within a couple of minutes.

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

He wants you to go high in the air and then jump out of a plane. If you can't see what he means,try it.

What's so dangerous about that? If you can't see what that means, try it. Post on here if your parachute doesn't fail. If it does, no worries -- we'll know.

As I said, I could do an expirement on acceleration from my desk here at work. That doesn't prove that Dark Energy is doing it.

Quote from: goober1223 on April 15, 2009, 02:52:29 PM

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated by Dark Energy, don't you?

Yeah, I guess that if you run quite fast toward the wall then it's pretty obvious that wall is accelerated toward you by some Pretty Dark Energy. Because you may black out when you meet the wall. I quite don't get the evidence for dark energy part when you smash itself to the ground.

Quote from: goober1223 on April 15, 2009, 02:52:29 PM

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated by Dark Energy, don't you?

that is no proof of FE at all. in both FE and RE you would hit the earth at terminal velocity. let me ask something. why, if a person jumps out of a plane, does the parachute slow them? if it was truly dark energy accelerating the earth towards you, why would the parachut make a difference? wouldnt you hit the earth at exactly the same speed? the impression i get in FE is that you dont fall, at all, just that the earth moves towards you. or am i missing something?

Quote from: Robosteve on April 15, 2009, 10:08:34 PM

Quote from: goober1223 on April 15, 2009, 02:52:29 PM

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated by Dark Energy, don't you?

that is no proof of FE at all. in both FE and RE you would hit the earth at terminal velocity. let me ask something. why, if a person jumps out of a plane, does the parachute slow them? if it was truly dark energy accelerating the earth towards you, why would the parachut make a difference? wouldnt you hit the earth at exactly the same speed? the impression i get in FE is that you dont fall, at all, just that the earth moves towards you. or am i missing something?

I can help you FEers out with this one:

The reason why a parachute works in FE is because Dark Energy is pushing the Earth up which is pushing the air up which pushes your parachute up.

FE Theory has been carefully constructed to allow for everything in the RE model with everything that can't be explained being a conspiracy (the "Ice Wall", NASA, and Satellites) and everything else is explained by mythical forces ("bendy light"0. Everything looks and behaves the same on a very local level, which is to say, for 99.999999% of the population who travel an average of 40 miles per day along the surface of the earth.

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 04:32:40 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 15, 2009, 10:08:34 PM

Quote from: goober1223 on April 15, 2009, 02:52:29 PM

What is it that you are going to be experiencing? Terminal velocity? What the heck are you implying here, because it's completely unclear what effects we are supposed to see.

When the Earth slams into you at fifty metres per second, I think that'll provide some pretty strong evidence that it's being accelerated by Dark Energy, don't you?

that is no proof of FE at all. in both FE and RE you would hit the earth at terminal velocity. let me ask something. why, if a person jumps out of a plane, does the parachute slow them? if it was truly dark energy accelerating the earth towards you, why would the parachut make a difference? wouldnt you hit the earth at exactly the same speed? the impression i get in FE is that you dont fall, at all, just that the earth moves towards you. or am i missing something?

I can help you FEers out with this one:

The reason why a parachute works in FE is because Dark Energy is pushing the Earth up which is pushing the air up which pushes your parachute up.

FE Theory has been carefully constructed to allow for everything in the RE model with everything that can't be explained being a conspiracy (the "Ice Wall", NASA, and Satellites) and everything else is explained by mythical forces ("bendy light"0. Everything looks and behaves the same on a very local level, which is to say, for 99.999999% of the population who travel an average of 40 miles per day along the surface of the earth.

well the parachute makes sence. but what did the freefall thing have to do with the dark energy as robosteve says, as the earth hits you at 50 m/s? thats just the person falling towards the earth terminal velocity due to gravity. anyone answer that, please?

Christ. You've got two things that act in the same direction, and that's sufficient to prove they're related?!

There are two angular dimensions by which the two may be separated by any arbitrary amount. Both of them are precisely coordinated to point in the same direction. You're not telling me that's not reason to believe there's some relationship between the two?

Yeah, I guess that if you run quite fast toward the wall then it's pretty obvious that wall is accelerated toward you by some Pretty Dark Energy. Because you may black out when you meet the wall. I quite don't get the evidence for dark energy part when you smash itself to the ground.

When running towards a wall, you are exerting a force to cause yourself to accelerate. There is no equivalent in the case of falling from an aeroplane.

well the parachute makes sence. but what did the freefall thing have to do with the dark energy as robosteve says, as the earth hits you at 50 m/s? thats just the person falling towards the earth terminal velocity due to gravity. anyone answer that, please?

What makes more sense, to think that some mysterious force called "gravity" is making you rush down towards the Earth, or that the Earth itself is rushing up to meet you just as you observe?

Quote from: Pongo on April 16, 2009, 01:27:02 AM

Ok, bear with me.  I am trying to understand this.  Some light off a building will go down and stop when it hits the earth so that you can't see it far away.  Some light goes straight out and bends up so that you can see it in a chopper.  Is that right?  If so, then I amend my experiment to include a powerful laser pointer.  Place the laser pointer in the top of the building and move the ship out to sea until the laser is on the boat.  Move the boat and fly the chopper up and out until it has the pointer on it.  Use the two locations and time them to see if the distance is constant with the speed of light.  If not, then the light took extra time bending and you have proved the earth is flat.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to describe here. Any chance of a diagram?

Quote from: Pongo on April 16, 2009, 01:27:02 AM

Another experiment: Take the laser to the top of the building.  Point the laser at the furthest thing you can see.  Find the distance to that point.  Get the angles of the triangle you just made (height of building, laser, distance from bottom of building to point).  If it's a true triangle then all the angles will add up to 180 degrees.  If on the other hand, the light from the laser has bent upwards, then the angles will not add up and you have made history.

Except that if the Earth is round, one of the sides of the triangle (that which corresponds to the surface of the Earth) will not be straight either.

First Experiment:  imagine the world to be round and light travels in a straight line.  On top of a building shine a laser just above the horizon.  On a spherical planet, the laser (if pointed correctly) will go towards the ocean and get closer and closer to the water's surface before it starts gaining height again (because the earth is curving).  If you put a chopper out in the ocean at the same height as the building, the laser will shine out from the building, get close to the ocean's surface and then appear to rise again.  Find the distance between the chopper and the building and time the speed of the light.  If it is NOT constant with the speed of light, then the light took extra time bending down and up (as stated in the FE theory).

Second Experiment:  True that, Tom is always telling people to assume a FE model when proposing experiments, but I guess we will get chastised for doing that as well.  However, it's irrelevant.  If you know the three angles, you can tell which side(s) are curved.  The experiment is still applicable.

First Experiment:  imagine the world to be round and light travels in a straight line.  On top of a building shine a laser just above the horizon.  On a spherical planet, the laser (if pointed correctly) will go towards the ocean and get closer and closer to the water's surface before it starts gaining height again (because the earth is curving).  If you put a chopper out in the ocean at the same height as the building, the laser will shine out from the building, get close to the ocean's surface and then appear to rise again.  Find the distance between the chopper and the building and time the speed of the light.  If it is NOT constant with the speed of light, then the light took extra time bending down and up (as stated in the FE theory).

How do you propose to measure the distance?

If you know the three angles, you can tell which side(s) are curved.

Proof? Not trolling, I'm genuinely interested to know the reasons for this, if indeed you are correct.

What makes more sense, to think that some mysterious force called "gravity" is making you rush down towards the Earth, or that the Earth itself is rushing up to meet you just as you observe?

What makes more sense, to think that some mysterious force called Dark Energy,
is making the earth accelerate upwards, which creates the illusion that you're falling
down to the earth? At the same time, there is another component of the Dark Energy,
which magically happens to bend light upwards at a certain distance. Fantastic!

Or, you're just falling down, due to the net force exerted by the Earth, also known as gravity?

I'll bet my entire fortune that none of you, when you were a small kid, jumping up and down in
the playground thought that: "Hey, the earth is catching up on me every time I jump. That is amazing! Mom!"

Or, you're just falling down, due to the net force exerted by the Earth, also known as gravity?

What causes this "gravity" you speak of? And how does your body know how to respond to it by falling?

Quote from: svenanders on April 17, 2009, 01:11:55 AM

Or, you're just falling down, due to the net force exerted by the Earth, also known as gravity?

What causes this "gravity" you speak of? And how does your body know how to respond to it by falling?

When you've answered my question, we can continue our conversation.

Quote from: Pongo on April 16, 2009, 09:09:14 PM

First Experiment:  imagine the world to be round and light travels in a straight line.  On top of a building shine a laser just above the horizon.  On a spherical planet, the laser (if pointed correctly) will go towards the ocean and get closer and closer to the water's surface before it starts gaining height again (because the earth is curving).  If you put a chopper out in the ocean at the same height as the building, the laser will shine out from the building, get close to the ocean's surface and then appear to rise again.  Find the distance between the chopper and the building and time the speed of the light.  If it is NOT constant with the speed of light, then the light took extra time bending down and up (as stated in the FE theory).

How do you propose to measure the distance?

Quote from: Pongo on April 16, 2009, 09:09:14 PM

If you know the three angles, you can tell which side(s) are curved.

Proof? Not trolling, I'm genuinely interested to know the reasons for this, if indeed you are correct.

1: Experimenter's choice.  I would personally use GPS, but I know some people question its validity.

2: This is basic geometry, if you have three angles and two sides, you can draw your triangle.  If one side doesn't fit then that's the curved one.  If two don't fit then they are both curved.  If you are asking me for a mathematical proof of this, you are out of your mind.  You actually don't need the length of any of the sides to get the answer.  If angle 1 + angle 2 + angle 3 /= 180 then it isn't a triangle and one or more of your sides are curved (and you can tell which one it is by drawing it out, proving one way or the other).  Interestingly, if two of your sides are straight, you can measure the curvature of the third line by knowing all the angles. Effectively measuring the curvature of light if you are correct. (assuming it's a simple curve, if not you will have to gather lots of triangles and compare)

When you've answered my question, we can continue our conversation.

Why should I answer your question when you never answered mine?

1: Experimenter's choice.  I would personally use GPS, but I know some people question it's validity.

You need a method of distance measurement which does not rely on the speed of light and can be repeated by anybody, without relying on tools made available by the Conspiracy. Otherwise, you can't accurately say anything about the speed of the light ray.

2: This is basic geometry, if you have three angles and two sides, you can draw your triangle.  If one side doesn't fit then that's the curved one.  If two don't fit then they are both curved.  If you are asking me for a mathematical proof of this, you are out of your mind.  You actually don't need the length of any of the sides to get the answer.  If angle 1 + angle 2 + angle 3 /= 180 then it isn't a triangle and one or more of your sides are curved.  Interestingly, if two of your sides are straight, you can measure the curvature of the third line by knowing all the angles. Effectively measuring the curvature of light. (assuming it's a simple curve, if not you will have to gather lots of triangles and compare)

It seems to me that if the angles don't sum to π and no information is given about the side lengths, then any of the sides could be curved to cause this. I don't see how you can figure out which side is the curved one just from knowing the angles.

Because you know where the angles sit in relation to each other.  You can 'twist' them into place.  If this cannot be done, you have a curved side and can figure out which one it is.  To make things simpler, we are both suggesting that only one side will be curved, we do not need to account for multiple sides being curved.

Many photographs are faked, here is an official N.A.S.A. photo showing Mars with a concave surface.

I believe the device taking that image was slightly slanted (by about 8 degrees) when it was taken.

Besides, it's a panoramic photograph. It's important to bear in mind the distortions that may arise when taking measurements using that method of photography.

If we take the entire panorama, you'll see what I mean:

Quote from: PiratePete on April 16, 2009, 01:14:29 PM

Christ. You've got two things that act in the same direction, and that's sufficient to prove they're related?!

There are two angular dimensions by which the two may be separated by any arbitrary amount. Both of them are precisely coordinated to point in the same direction. You're not telling me that's not reason to believe there's some relationship between the two?

Quote from: zork on April 16, 2009, 02:50:23 PM

Yeah, I guess that if you run quite fast toward the wall then it's pretty obvious that wall is accelerated toward you by some Pretty Dark Energy. Because you may black out when you meet the wall. I quite don't get the evidence for dark energy part when you smash itself to the ground.

When running towards a wall, you are exerting a force to cause yourself to accelerate. There is no equivalent in the case of falling from an aeroplane.

Quote from: lupey on April 16, 2009, 06:05:53 PM

well the parachute makes sence. but what did the freefall thing have to do with the dark energy as robosteve says, as the earth hits you at 50 m/s? thats just the person falling towards the earth terminal velocity due to gravity. anyone answer that, please?

What makes more sense, to think that some mysterious force called "gravity" is making you rush down towards the Earth, or that the Earth itself is rushing up to meet you just as you observe?

gravity, because its been proven and observed repeatedly, where as the earth rushing up to you has no real proof beyond the fact that its one of the necessary pseudosciences for FE to work which itself has no solid proof

Because you know where the angles sit in relation to each other.  You can 'twist' them into place.  If this cannot be done, you have a curved side and can figure out which one it is.  To make things simpler, we are both suggesting that only one side will be curved, we do not need to account for multiple sides being curved.

Fine. Ninety degrees, thirty degrees, forty-five degrees. Which side is curved?

gravity, because its been proven and observed repeatedly, where as the earth rushing up to you has no real proof beyond the fact that its one of the necessary pseudosciences for FE to work which itself has no solid proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Quote from: zork on April 16, 2009, 02:50:23 PM

Yeah, I guess that if you run quite fast toward the wall then it's pretty obvious that wall is accelerated toward you by some Pretty Dark Energy. Because you may black out when you meet the wall. I quite don't get the evidence for dark energy part when you smash itself to the ground.

When running towards a wall, you are exerting a force to cause yourself to accelerate. There is no equivalent in the case of falling from an aeroplane.

Running was just the first thing that popped into my mind. You can stay put and wall can move toward you if you just choose proper frame of reference and observer. So, we agree that wall is accelerated toward you by Pretty Dark Energy when you see it moving towards you.

I'll bet my entire fortune that none of you, when you were a small kid, jumping up and down in
the playground thought that: "Hey, the earth is catching up on me every time I jump. That is amazing! Mom!"

A little off topic, but I did actually entertain that idea more than once.  But I may have been an odd child.
Then again, anybody interested in science and philosophy would have had this thought at least once in their life, and I'd call them a liar if they said otherwise.

Quote from: Pongo on April 17, 2009, 02:12:39 AM

Because you know where the angles sit in relation to each other.  You can 'twist' them into place.  If this cannot be done, you have a curved side and can figure out which one it is.  To make things simpler, we are both suggesting that only one side will be curved, we do not need to account for multiple sides being curved.

Fine. Ninety degrees, thirty degrees, forty-five degrees. Which side is curved?

You failed to give all information required, plus I'm assuming that the building side is straight.  This whole thing is pointless though, no one is going to conduct this experiment.  There is a much simpler experiment to gauge the distance to the moon and no one tried it.  You can sit here and try and poke holes in geometry till you are blue in the face, at the end of the day no one will try and measure the curvature of light.  (I also lack a protractor)

The equivelence principle only applies to small volumes of space over short time frames. After which it becomes easy to differentiate as falling objects start to follow the geodesics of the spherical earth.

Sigh. Please don't be so ambiguous. What exactly is a geodesic "of the spherical earth"? A line drawn on its surface, perhaps?

Also, gravitation due to mass would indeed be the most plausible cause of our apparent attraction to the surface of the planet if it were round. In FET, acceleration is more likely.

Running was just the first thing that popped into my mind. You can stay put and wall can move toward you if you just choose proper frame of reference and observer. So, we agree that wall is accelerated toward you by Pretty Dark Energy when you see it moving towards you.

No, because you must accelerate from rest, making your frame of reference non-inertial.

Quote from: zork on April 17, 2009, 08:04:34 AM

Running was just the first thing that popped into my mind. You can stay put and wall can move toward you if you just choose proper frame of reference and observer. So, we agree that wall is accelerated toward you by Pretty Dark Energy when you see it moving towards you.

No, because you must accelerate from rest, making your frame of reference non-inertial.

No, you don't. Something else can do it and you don't have to even notice it. So, I can rephrase it a little - So, we agree that wall is accelerated toward you by Pretty Dark Energy when you see it moving towards you and you can't detect that you itself move.

No, you don't. Something else can do it and you don't have to even notice it. So, I can rephrase it a little - So, we agree that wall is accelerated toward you by Pretty Dark Energy when you see it moving towards you and you can't detect that you itself move.

If you measured your acceleration from a known state of rest (with respect to the surface of the Earth, and therefore the wall) using an accelerometer, you would know that it is you who are accelerating.

If you measured your acceleration from a known state of rest (with respect to the surface of the Earth, and therefore the wall) using an accelerometer, you would know that it is you who are accelerating.

Yes, if. But you don't measure anything, you don't even have accelerometer. You have only your eyes. And with these you see only the wall which races towards you. So, the wall must be the one which is accelerating.

Yes, if. But you don't measure anything, you don't even have accelerometer. You have only your eyes. And with these you see only the wall which races towards you. So, the wall must be the one which is accelerating.

No, it is a different situation. You are still choosing a non-inertial frame of reference, whether or not the observer is aware of that fact.