Poll

Do you believe Rowbotham proved the earth is flat with his Bedford Level experiment, or do you believe light bends to create the illusion of a horizon?

Rowbotham proved earth is flat. There was no illusion.
5 (26.3%)
Light bends to create the illusion of a horizon.
14 (73.7%)

Total Members Voted: 19

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down

Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

  • 183 Replies
  • 47907 Views
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« on: June 29, 2009, 08:55:36 AM »
This is a poll for FE'ers. There seems to be disagreement as to whether there is a horizon, objects can disappear behind it, Rowbotham proved the world is flat, light can bend to create the illusion of a horizon, etc. I was hoping to determine what the general consensus is. If any FE theories require another option, please explain.
Logged
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2009, 12:45:56 PM »
 Rowbotham's predictions of the experiment were wrong to start with.  He predicted that a 5' vessel would be 11' below the horizon after 6 miles, predicting a 16' curve in the earth after 6 miles. That's nearly 32 inches per mile! Even the math of the day was far beyond this kind of error.
Using the accepted circumference of the earth we know that the observable curvature is 7.6" per mile. So after 6 miles the 5" vessel should still be visible by nearly 2 feet.
Bendy light, FE, or RE; no matter the reason for the observation, his experiment was all messed up before he started. Plus he should have had more observers with him in the stream recording their findings also. And a better method for confirming the distance used. For all we know the distance could have been shorter than reported or he could have stated that the boat was in full view (when it was not) to support his own predictions. Plus every attempts to duplicate his experiments since have returned evidence contrary to what he reported.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 12:47:28 PM by Sentient Pizza »
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2009, 01:45:57 PM »
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2009, 02:10:58 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 01:45:57 PM
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.
Well, if you're waiting for the "bendy light" theory to be developed before you can explain the "sinking ship" effect, then you must believe in "bendy light" even though you don't understand how it could happen yet. If you have another explanation which you are using until "bendy light" presumably provides a more plausible explanation, let me know, and I will add it as an option.
Logged
?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2009, 02:28:56 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 01:45:57 PM
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.

He means: "We're still dreaming this one up, so don't offer your "opinion" until we give it to you.  It makes us all look a bunch of kooks who can't even agree on which crazy stuff to say."  This was a message from party leadership to the minions.

This poll is very relevant because it speaks to the internal hypocrisy that FET relies on to survive on this site.

Believing two contradicting ideas at the same time is called "compartmentalization."  It's impossible to actually achieve without at least one diagnosable mental illness involving delusions.  Usually, it's just a sign that the speaker is lying about what they believe (more common than most people think).  If they are not lying, they are delusional.

It would be nice to see how each poster votes in this thread, but I doubt you will get many since stating one's belief here could then be quoted later and may not match the new theory that is being "developed."  It's much safer for all the FE'ers to just wait until after they are told what to believe.  That way, they seem to be more consistent and therefore more credible.

Remember in school when some people were only willing to voice their opinion after hearing others?  Same thing applies here for sure.
Logged
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.
(Thanks, Daniel.
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2009, 02:36:06 PM »
Quote from: Skeptek on June 29, 2009, 02:28:56 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 01:45:57 PM
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.

He means: "We're still dreaming this one up, so don't offer your "opinion" until we give it to you.  It makes us all look a bunch of kooks who can't even agree on which crazy stuff to say."  This was a message from party leadership to the minions.

This poll is very relevant because it speaks to the internal hypocrisy that FET relies on to survive on this site.

Believing two contradicting ideas at the same time is called "compartmentalization."  It's impossible to actually achieve without at least one diagnosable mental illness involving delusions.  Usually, it's just a sign that the speaker is lying about what they believe (more common than most people think).  If they are not lying, they are delusional.

It would be nice to see how each poster votes in this thread, but I doubt you will get many since stating one's belief here could then be quoted later and may not match the new theory that is being "developed."  It's much safer for all the FE'ers to just wait until after they are told what to believe.  That way, they seem to be more consistent and therefore more credible.

Remember in school when some people were only willing to voice their opinion after hearing others?  Same thing applies here for sure.
I just have one question for you. Why are you on this site? You make huge assumptions about FE'ers, and have no logic to back it up. This is a forum for debating the shape of the earth, but you are a zealot who refuses to even consider the other side. Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed? No, a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
Logged
?

equinox

  • 157
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2009, 03:02:08 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 02:36:06 PM
...a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.

I, for one, would beg to differ.  Skeptek is likely the most logical person on the site.  This is a case of believing the best defense to go on the offensive.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2009, 03:04:14 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 02:36:06 PM
I just have one question for you. Why are you on this site? You make huge assumptions about FE'ers, and have no logic to back it up. This is a forum for debating the shape of the earth, but you are a zealot who refuses to even consider the other side. Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed? No, a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
I would agree that reply was a little harsh. Disagreements among members does not necessarily mean any particular member believes in two contradicting theories depending on what they are responding to, though I wouldn't be shocked if someone here did. He makes some fair points, though. It is a little difficult to debate when your theory is under construction. Also, to say the poll is moot until someone develops their theory would suggest it is already accepted by the community before it is even finished.
Logged
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2009, 03:11:20 PM »
Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 03:04:14 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 02:36:06 PM
I just have one question for you. Why are you on this site? You make huge assumptions about FE'ers, and have no logic to back it up. This is a forum for debating the shape of the earth, but you are a zealot who refuses to even consider the other side. Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed? No, a logical person would not do that, but you are not a logical person. You are a zealot, the worst kind of person there is.
I would agree that reply was a little harsh. Disagreements among members does not necessarily mean any particular member believes in two contradicting theories depending on what they are responding to, though I wouldn't be shocked if someone here did. He makes some fair points, though. It is a little difficult to debate when your theory is under construction. Also, to say the poll is moot until someone develops their theory would suggest it is already accepted by the community before it is even finished.
You must agree that this poll isn't very important until Electromagnetic Acceleration is done being developed.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2009, 03:24:38 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
You must agree that this poll isn't very important until Electromagnetic Acceleration is done being developed.
No, I would not agree, although I'm not sure what you mean by "important". Regardless of what theories someone may be working on, if you believe the earth is flat, then you should have an explanation for the "sinking ship" effect. Would you suggest I add an option:
"there must be an explanation, I just don't know it yet"
Logged
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2009, 03:38:51 PM »
Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
You must agree that this poll isn't very important until Electromagnetic Acceleration is done being developed.
No, I would not agree, although I'm not sure what you mean by "important". Regardless of what theories someone may be working on, if you believe the earth is flat, then you should have an explanation for the "sinking ship" effect. Would you suggest I add an option:
"there must be an explanation, I just don't know it yet"
It is most likely how Rowbotham theorized, but EA (bendy light) may explain it, when it is fully developed. EA should not be truly considered until it is finished being developed.
Logged
?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2009, 04:25:03 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 03:38:51 PM
It is most likely how Rowbotham theorized, but EA (bendy light) may explain it, when it is fully developed. EA should not be truly considered until it is finished being developed.
Why not?

Scientific debate demands that all possibilities be considered.  To suggest that an idea should be kept out of the debate until someone agrees on what that idea actually is smacks of propaganda, not debate.

Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 02:36:06 PM
Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed?
I would never expect the general public to choose between ID and Evolution.  The very fact that you presented this as your analogue is indicative of magical thinking and a lack of scientific basis to your belief system.  I strongly suspect this is a tactic on your part to take this thread off topic with a provocative goad.  It sorta worked on me... anyone smell a creationist?  As if all FE'ers weren't.  Pfff
Logged
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.
(Thanks, Daniel.
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2009, 04:46:13 PM »
Quote from: Skeptek on June 29, 2009, 04:25:03 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 03:38:51 PM
It is most likely how Rowbotham theorized, but EA (bendy light) may explain it, when it is fully developed. EA should not be truly considered until it is finished being developed.
Why not?

Scientific debate demands that all possibilities be considered.  To suggest that an idea should be kept out of the debate until someone agrees on what that idea actually is smacks of propaganda, not debate.
In a debate about which theory you believe is correct, why consider a theory that is not even finished? That's like asking what you would prefer to eat, a steak dinner (fully cooked), or a getting a raw hunk of meat, a knife, and some matches.
Quote from: Skeptek on June 29, 2009, 04:25:03 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 02:36:06 PM
Would you expect people to choose between intelligent design and evolution before evolution was fully researched and developed?
I would never expect the general public to choose between ID and Evolution.  The very fact that you presented this as your analogue is indicative of magical thinking and a lack of scientific basis to your belief system.  I strongly suspect this is a tactic on your part to take this thread off topic with a provocative goad.  It sorta worked on me... anyone smell a creationist?  As if all FE'ers weren't.  Pfff
Why would you expect people to pick between these two theories, but no those two theories?  (ID and Evolution)
Fun fact-Most FE'ers are not creationists.
Logged
?

Squat

Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2009, 10:32:16 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 29, 2009, 01:45:57 PM
Until the bendy light theory is fully developed, this poll is moot.

Who is doing the development and can anyone say how far advanced this development is?  When are we likely to see a definitive statement that can be subjected to normal scientific examination?   
Logged
*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2009, 10:38:19 PM »
Only REers vote in this poll.
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2009, 01:53:43 AM »
Quote from: Squat on June 29, 2009, 10:32:16 PM
When are we likely to see a definitive statement that can be subjected to normal scientific examination?   

Never! They have resorted to name calling in this thread, this is often the last defence for a flat earther.

By your logic, Waste of Mind (or 'Waste of Oxygen'), we should believe the world is round until you can prove otherwise.
Logged
*

frostee

  • Official Member
  • 3498
  • +0/-0
  • Posts: 1337
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2009, 02:34:16 AM »
Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 01:53:43 AM
Quote from: Squat on June 29, 2009, 10:32:16 PM
When are we likely to see a definitive statement that can be subjected to normal scientific examination?   

Never! They have resorted to name calling in this thread, this is often the last defence for a flat earther.

By your logic, Waste of Mind (or 'Waste of Oxygen'), we should believe the world is round until you can prove otherwise.

clever
Logged
Recently religious due to the impending rapture.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2009, 02:51:15 AM »
Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 01:53:43 AM
By your logic, Waste of Mind (or 'Waste of Oxygen'), we should believe the world is round until you can prove otherwise.

Not at all. Did you actually read his posts? By his logic, we should refrain from choosing between RET and FET until FET is fully developed.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2009, 03:17:08 AM »
Yes but the round earth is fairly well develloped and is currently the scientific consensus, therefore we should believe that.

I doubt your theories will ever be develloped and that was you will never have to respond to such questions.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2009, 03:19:39 AM »
Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 03:17:08 AM
Yes but the round earth is fairly well develloped and is currently the scientific consensus, therefore we should believe that.

Yes, let's blindly follow what we're taught. That's a great idea, what could possibly go wrong?

Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 03:17:08 AM
I doubt your theories will ever be develloped and that was you will never have to respond to such questions.

Did you forget a word or five?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2009, 03:45:59 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on June 30, 2009, 03:19:39 AM
Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 03:17:08 AM
I doubt your theories will ever be develloped and that means you will never have to respond to such questions.

Did you forget a word or five?

Typical, small typo which allows you to distract from the main bulk of the argument.

I believe what I am tought, I read a lot of science journals and they make sense all of which are based in our round earth. The nonsense that you all seem to spew out and want to believe is a joke in comparison and you have no evidence backing your claims.

Rowbotham was a joke and not a scientist. If you believe him you may aswell believe L Ron Hubbard (founder of scientology) as he spewed similar bouts of fiction.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2009, 04:00:53 AM »
Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 03:45:59 AM
Typical, small typo which allows you to distract from the main bulk of the argument.

I believe what I am tought, I read a lot of science journals and they make sense all of which are based in our round earth. The nonsense that you all seem to spew out and want to believe is a joke in comparison and you have no evidence backing your claims.

Rowbotham was a joke and not a scientist. If you believe him you may aswell believe L Ron Hubbard (founder of scientology) as he spewed similar bouts of fiction.

If that's how you feel, then why the heck are you posting in a forum for debating the shape of the Earth?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 07:29:34 AM by Hara Taiki »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2009, 04:43:55 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on June 30, 2009, 04:00:53 AM
If that's how you feel, then why the fuck are you posting in a forum for debating the shape of the Earth?

Please refrain from using bad language, childeren can read these forums!
(Not that they would take a second look as they know the earth is not flat)
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2009, 04:47:57 AM »
Quote from: danwood on June 30, 2009, 04:43:55 AM
Please refrain from using bad language, childeren can read these forums!
(Not that they would take a second look as they know the earth is not flat)

You are not a moderator. Since the mods don't seem to have a problem with my language, I will continue to use it as I see fit.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2009, 07:00:27 AM »
The way this thread is going it seems like EA is the keys to the FE/RE castle. This EA idea is the one thing that FE needs to work. Without it there is no hope for FE. I am very interested to see how it comes out of the FE camp. I hope it can account for the major difference between observable horizon and sun light. Observable horizon light "bends/drops" at 7.6" per mile. Sun light would have to bend about 2600'/mile to make the spot effect that creates day and night on the FE.

So I guess and debat untill EA is figured out is kind of pointless.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2009, 07:04:46 AM »
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 07:00:27 AM
The way this thread is going it seems like EA is the keys to the FE/RE castle. This EA idea is the one thing that FE needs to work. Without it there is no hope for FE. I am very interested to see how it comes out of the FE camp. I hope it can account for the major difference between observable horizon and sun light. Observable horizon light "bends/drops" at 7.6" per mile. Sun light would have to bend about 2600'/mile to make the spot effect that creates day and night on the FE.

So I guess and debat untill EA is figured out is kind of pointless.

The rate of curvature is not constant; it depends on the angle of the light rays to the horizontal. Brief preliminary calculations have shown that a single EA equation could account for both the horizon and the behaviour of the Sun; the finalised theory should confirm this when it is completed.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2009, 07:28:55 AM »
 
Quote from: Robosteve on June 30, 2009, 07:04:46 AM
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 07:00:27 AM
The way this thread is going it seems like EA is the keys to the FE/RE castle. This EA idea is the one thing that FE needs to work. Without it there is no hope for FE. I am very interested to see how it comes out of the FE camp. I hope it can account for the major difference between observable horizon and sun light. Observable horizon light "bends/drops" at 7.6" per mile. Sun light would have to bend about 2600'/mile to make the spot effect that creates day and night on the FE.

So I guess and debat untill EA is figured out is kind of pointless.

The rate of curvature is not constant; it depends on the angle of the light rays to the horizontal. Brief preliminary calculations have shown that a single EA equation could account for both the horizon and the behaviour of the Sun; the finalised theory should confirm this when it is completed.
Agreed.
The assumption so far is that it is some kind of curve correct? The light emitted from the sun down toward the disk is mostly perpendicular to its surface. Then the spot is created by the "bend" and light is almost parallel with the surface of the disk at the edge of the spot.
My point is that in the RE model this horizon effect is repeatable within a very small margin of error on any body of water on the earth. Also in the RE model light travels in straight lines unless changing media, or affected by major gravitational or EM forces. In the FE model there are two glaringly different ways in which observable light can behave.
Which Is why I am very interested to see this EA idea flushed out.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2009, 07:35:06 AM »
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 07:28:55 AM
Agreed.
The assumption so far is that it is some kind of curve correct? The light emitted from the sun down toward the disk is mostly perpendicular to its surface. Then the spot is created by the "bend" and light is almost parallel with the surface of the disk at the edge of the spot.

I am still confident that the curvature is likely to take on the shape of a parabola, and when I put together documentation on EA theory during the winter break - I should be able to make a start on Sunday at the latest - I will devote the majority of it to this naturally simplistic shape. I will also briefly mention possible other shapes in an appendix, including Euclid's empirical formula, and discuss how plausible I consider them to be.

As anybody with a high school education in mathematics should be able to figure out, if you project the apparent height of a light ray in RET onto a Flat Earth, it traces out a secant curve - that is, the inverse of a cosine. However, I don't see that a natural force is likely to produce such a curve, and am hesitant to accept this shape just because it agrees with RE observations.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 07:28:55 AM
In the FE model there are two glaringly different ways in which observable light can behave.

Er, there are?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2009, 08:19:34 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on June 30, 2009, 07:35:06 AM
As anybody with a high school education in mathematics should be able to figure out, if you project the apparent height of a light ray in RET onto a Flat Earth, it traces out a secant curve - that is, the inverse of a cosine. However, I don't see that a natural force is likely to produce such a curve, and am hesitant to accept this shape just because it agrees with RE observations.

I'm not sure waht your getting at here. If you are talking about the actual wave form of a light ray: That form is consistent with all EM radiation and is a naturaly occuring form. no extra forces need to produce it. If I'm mising the point please tell me.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 07:28:55 AM
In the FE model there are two glaringly different ways in which observable light can behave.

I was referring to the difference between how observable ligt has to behave on the horizon and from the sun to make the FE model work. one is 7.6-ish inches/mile and the other is .487 miles/mile. That they curve makes them similar but the huge difference between the two examples is what I'm trying to highlight.
Er, there are?
[/quote]
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2009, 08:42:56 AM »
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 08:19:34 AM
I'm not sure waht your getting at here. If you are talking about the actual wave form of a light ray: That form is consistent with all EM radiation and is a naturaly occuring form. no extra forces need to produce it. If I'm mising the point please tell me.

No, what I am referring to is a projection of a straight-line ray tangent to the Round Earth onto a Flat Earth. Allow me to illustrate:



Here the black circle is the Round Earth, the red line is a light ray tangent to its surface, the blue arc is a variable distance along the surface, and the green line is the apparent height of the light ray at that distance. If we project this onto the FE model, like so:



The curve produced is a secant curve - that is, it is of the shape obtained by plotting y = sec x, or y = 1 / cos x.

Quote from: Sentient Pizza on June 30, 2009, 08:19:34 AM
I was referring to the difference between how observable ligt has to behave on the horizon and from the sun to make the FE model work. one is 7.6-ish inches/mile and the other is .487 miles/mile. That they curve makes them similar but the huge difference between the two examples is what I'm trying to highlight.

It is essentially the same behaviour. The light from the Sun is curving the exact same way as light from the horizon does when it gets near horizontal. Also, I think you are confusing curvature with gradient; inches per mile is a measure of gradient, not curvature.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »