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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

  • 183 Replies
  • 47909 Views
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #120 on: July 03, 2009, 11:02:14 AM »
A light signal within a fiber optic will bounce off the edges, its designed to at certain angles and the cables and light you use defines how much of a bend the cable can have.

I think you might be missing the point that the light doesn't travel straight down the fiber it bounces of the edges at regular intervals.

If the light changes angle (as in 'bendy light') there would be no way that current fibers would work as the angle of reflection would change and the absorption rate goes up. The bendy light's angle would gradually reach the point of no return and the signal would be useless.
Logged
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3459
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #121 on: July 03, 2009, 11:18:26 AM »
And would signal degradation happen sooner in a straight cable where the light bends at a rate which approximates the curvature of the Earth, or in a cable whose curve approximates the curvature of the Earth with 'normal' light?  Also, how do you know?
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #122 on: July 03, 2009, 11:24:57 AM »
Read up on TIR its not the harest thing to explain but its becoming a pain in this thread.

Basically the light in a fiber bounces of the edges at angles whcih cause very little signal degradation even in a curved cable. You have to remember the fiber is extremely small so even a bend to the curvature of the earth wouldn't affect it. The thing that would affect it is a variable angle of reflection that the bendy light would create.

Also what direction would the light bend in down a fiber?
If you had to calculate the bend in it would be nice to know which direction to go.
Logged
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3459
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #123 on: July 03, 2009, 11:34:45 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 11:24:57 AM
You have to remember the fiber is extremely small so even bendy light approximating the curvature of the Earth wouldn't affect it. The thing that would affect it is a variable angle of reflection that a cable following the curvature of the Earth would create.

Fixed.

Or rather, the two would be equivalent.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #124 on: July 03, 2009, 11:52:59 AM »
Quote from: EnigmaZV on July 03, 2009, 11:34:45 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 03, 2009, 11:24:57 AM
You have to remember the fiber is extremely small so even bendy light approximating the curvature of the Earth wouldn't affect it. The thing that would affect it is a variable angle of reflection that a cable following the curvature of the Earth would create.

Fixed.

Or rather, the two would be equivalent.


I'm sorry mate, you are way off here. Fibre optical physics relies massively on straight light.

The curves cited wouldn't produce your diagrams - quite simply, if light bended that much on a regular occurence, what you and I see as a straight door frame, from a physical matter perspective, wouldn't be straight at all. Light bounces many millions of times down a length of fibre optic - and we are suggesting deviation (completely hypothetically as no serious values have been decided on to my knowledge? I will happily stand corrected here) of around a micrometre per metre or 2 of distance travelled. On that basis, it probably would take a fairly large distance, a few miles maybe, to properly see the effects described. Since we know that fibre optic cabling is used for many thousands of miles around the earth to carry our communications - we can deduce light surely cannot bend even on a really ridiculously small level.

I think there are a couple of people here that really need to read up on fibre optics - including incidence angles, critical angles of a fibre optic boundary, total internal reflection and a culmination of all these topics which is the acceptance cone of a fibre optic. Most importantly, bending light would violate the concept of an acceptance cone INSIDE the fibre optic; which anyone with an ounce of knowledge on fibre optics, know cannot be done. And do y'all know why? Light is straight peoples...that's the end of it.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #125 on: July 03, 2009, 12:05:34 PM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 03, 2009, 02:48:20 AM
I disagree; gravitation will cause it to sag.
How much error do you suggest would result from gravitation causing a tape measure to sag over 50 meters while being pulled taut? Can you suggest a better experiment? This is your hypothesis after all. Are you counting on your hypothesis never being proven or disproven in a way that satisfies you?

By the way, the error tolerance for the mirrors being parallel which I calculated was incorrect. I believe I know a correct way, but don't have the time now.
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #126 on: July 03, 2009, 11:59:25 PM »
Robocock has shut up?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #127 on: July 04, 2009, 04:16:34 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 03, 2009, 12:05:34 PM
How much error do you suggest would result from gravitation causing a tape measure to sag over 50 meters while being pulled taut? Can you suggest a better experiment? This is your hypothesis after all. Are you counting on your hypothesis never being proven or disproven in a way that satisfies you?

By the way, the error tolerance for the mirrors being parallel which I calculated was incorrect. I believe I know a correct way, but don't have the time now.

I will attempt to suggest a better experiment when the theory is complete and I know exactly what I am testing for. The amount of error would depend on how strongly you were pulling it taut.

Now, on the topic of fibre optics: can anyone arguing aganist their functionality with curved light post a diagram indicating why you think the angle of incidence would decrease from one reflection to the next? It's very hard to debate with you when you aren't properly explaining your reasoning for this.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #128 on: July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 04:16:34 AM
Now, on the topic of fibre optics: can anyone arguing aganist their functionality with curved light post a diagram indicating why you think the angle of incidence would decrease from one reflection to the next? It's very hard to debate with you when you aren't properly explaining your reasoning for this.

I don't think that's possible - the amount of reflections that would need to be drawn make it a bit of a difficult one from a diagrammatical point of view.

Basically bending light over the course of one reflection would alter the incidence angle ever so slightly - you can't disagree with that. Combine that into the many millions of reflections that occur down a fibre optic - the angle (if my thought patterns are correct) of incidence would increase on one side of the optic (assuming we are using a 2D model here), and then decrease on the other boundary of the optic (depending on the direction that light apparently bends in). Eventually, one of these will go past the angle of incidence (probably the latter) and then escape the fibre.

If I knew WHAT light bended towards (i.e. what direction), it would make this hypothesis far easier to explain and/or draw.

I don't know how I can put it any clearer for you Robosteve. IF you have taken university level education in fibre optics, you would know without any doubt, how important straight light is to maintain minimum attenuation which is vital to fibre optics working. I just don't understand how you could conceive otherwise.
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #129 on: July 04, 2009, 05:18:54 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
IF you have taken university level education in fibre optics, you would know without any doubt, how important straight light is to maintain minimum attenuation which is vital to fibre optics working. I just don't understand how you could conceive otherwise.

Julian he hasn't, he is just a troll.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #130 on: July 04, 2009, 05:40:49 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
I don't think that's possible - the amount of reflections that would need to be drawn make it a bit of a difficult one from a diagrammatical point of view.

Show what causes the angle of incidence to go from θ to θ + δθ, then.

Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
Basically bending light over the course of one reflection would alter the incidence angle ever so slightly - you can't disagree with that.

Depends on the specific circumstances.

Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
Eventually, one of these will go past the angle of incidence (probably the latter) and then escape the fibre.

Why?

Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
If I knew WHAT light bended towards (i.e. what direction), it would make this hypothesis far easier to explain and/or draw.

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

julianmartin

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #131 on: July 04, 2009, 06:39:22 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 05:40:49 AM

Show what causes the angle of incidence to go from θ to θ + δθ, then.

Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 04:56:22 AM
Basically bending light over the course of one reflection would alter the incidence angle ever so slightly - you can't disagree with that.

Depends on the specific circumstances.

What circumstances? You complain about people not explaining themselves, yet you are as much a culprit as anyone else. Does light only sometimes bend then?

I will do a diagram later but to be honest I'm reluctant to spend the time on someone I think could be trolling for the sake of it.
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #132 on: July 04, 2009, 06:59:25 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 05:40:49 AM
Up.

What makes it bend only up?
And up with respect to what? You need to specify a reference angle!

We need answers to these questions robocock otherwise we cannot draw any realistic diagrams.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #133 on: July 04, 2009, 07:22:55 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 06:39:22 AM
What circumstances? You complain about people not explaining themselves, yet you are as much a culprit as anyone else. Does light only sometimes bend then?

Light always bends, but if it reflects off the upper boundary between the materials, and then curves to go back up again before it reaches the lower boundary, the angle of incidence will be left unaltered. It is only if it makes it the whole way across the fibre that the angle of incidence will change. (Assuming a straight fibre, of course.)

Quote from: julianmartin on July 04, 2009, 06:39:22 AM
I will do a diagram later but to be honest I'm reluctant to spend the time on someone I think could be trolling for the sake of it.

I assure you, as much as I have trolled in the past, I truly believe that you are wrong in this matter and would like to know why you think the angle of incidence would decrease.

Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 06:59:25 AM
What makes it bend only up?

Dark Energy.

Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 06:59:25 AM
And up with respect to what? You need to specify a reference angle!

The more you say shit like this, the more convinced I become that you lack even a high school education in geometry.
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 #134 on: July 04, 2009, 07:27:53 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 07:22:55 AM
The more you say shit like this, the more convinced I become that you lack even a high school education in geometry.

I was repeating what you said earlier you plank!
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #135 on: July 04, 2009, 07:29:39 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 07:27:53 AM
I was repeating what you said earlier you plank!

Please show me where I said that. Really, I'd love to know.
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 #136 on: July 04, 2009, 07:32:24 AM »
You said that when we were talking about bends.
Your inferior brain couldn't handle a simple bend so you started talking nonsense about reference angles and calculus (of which had no reference to the conversation).

Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 07:22:55 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 06:59:25 AM
What makes it bend only up?

Dark Energy.

Can you prove me some dark energy?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #137 on: July 04, 2009, 07:33:55 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 07:32:24 AM
You said that when we were talking about bends.
Your inferior brain couldn't handle a simple bend so you started talking nonsense about reference angles and calculus (of which had no reference to the conversation).

Can you quote me a specific post? I don't remember saying that at all.

Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 07:32:24 AM
Can you prove me some dark energy?

Can you prove me some gravity?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #138 on: July 04, 2009, 07:39:27 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 04:16:34 AM
I will attempt to suggest a better experiment when the theory is complete and I know exactly what I am testing for. The amount of error would depend on how strongly you were pulling it taut.
I now calculate that the error required for 2 meter tall mirrors 50 meters apart to offset the hypothesized bending of light, assuming it is consistent with the observed curvature of earth in RET, would be 0.1413 cm. The required precision would make my experiment impossible with a tape measure.

Your hypothesis doesn't become a theory until you not only suggest an experiment, but it is performed and supports your hypothesis. Since you still have to verify how much light bends to create the illusion of a round earth, and you don't seem to have any ideas for an experiment, I don't expect you to complete your theory any time soon.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #139 on: July 04, 2009, 07:42:04 AM »
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #140 on: July 04, 2009, 07:45:12 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 04, 2009, 07:42:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

This proves nothing except that masses distort spacetime and possess inertia.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #141 on: July 04, 2009, 07:53:46 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 07:45:12 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 04, 2009, 07:42:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

This proves nothing except that masses distort spacetime and possess inertia.
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #142 on: July 04, 2009, 08:01:33 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 04, 2009, 07:53:46 AM
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.

The Earth only appears to attract objects in our frame of reference, because we have a limited view of the Universe. Accepting it as a real force is analogous to accepting red and green as the same colour because colour blind people can't tell the difference.
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 #143 on: July 04, 2009, 08:14:55 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 08:01:33 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 04, 2009, 07:53:46 AM
That distortion of spacetime is called gravitation. Gravity is the gravitational pull the earth has on objects. The earth has mass. The masses used in the experiment were pieces of earth. Gravity was proven.

The Earth only appears to attract objects in our frame of reference, because we have a limited view of the Universe. Accepting it as a real force is analogous to accepting red and green as the same colour because colour blind people can't tell the difference.

I cannot prove what causes gravity, just that it exists.

I can measure the gravity around the earth and it changes depending on altitude.
If we believe the UA myth then this wouldn t happen as everything would travel at the same rate.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #144 on: July 04, 2009, 08:16:08 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 08:14:55 AM
I cannot prove what causes gravity, just that it exists.

How?

Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 08:14:55 AM
I can measure the gravity around the earth and it changes depending on altitude.
If we believe the UA myth then this wouldn t happen as everything would travel at the same rate.

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

ignatio

  • 9
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #145 on: July 04, 2009, 09:17:26 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 08:16:08 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 08:14:55 AM
I cannot prove what causes gravity, just that it exists.

How?

Quote from: danwood on July 04, 2009, 08:14:55 AM
I can measure the gravity around the earth and it changes depending on altitude.
If we believe the UA myth then this wouldn t happen as everything would travel at the same rate.

Incorrect.

Why are you deliberately derailing this thread?

This thread is about Rowbotham and bendy light. Rowbotham was right since he performed the experiments. All your "frame of reference nonsense" is just that. It belongs in complete nonsense.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #146 on: July 04, 2009, 09:21:06 AM »
Quote from: ignatio on July 04, 2009, 09:17:26 AM
Why are you deliberately derailing this thread?

I am discussing potential sources of error in cdenley's experiment; for some reason, REers feel the need to leap on my use of the word "gravitation". It is they who are derailing the thread.

Quote from: ignatio on July 04, 2009, 09:17:26 AM
This thread is about Rowbotham and bendy light. Rowbotham was right since he performed the experiments. All your "frame of reference nonsense" is just that. It belongs in complete nonsense.

People who perform experiments are always right? Shit, I better perform an experiment, and fast!

Also, physics is nothing without the concept of frames of reference. Please come back when you have some basic knowledge of the subject.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

ignatio

  • 9
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #147 on: July 04, 2009, 09:25:06 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 09:21:06 AM
People who perform experiments are always right? Shit, I better perform an experiment, and fast!

Also, physics is nothing without the concept of frames of reference. Please come back when you have some basic knowledge of the subject.

No. "Frame of reference" means nothing. Please come back when

1) you have performed an experiment
2) you stop babbling nonsense
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #148 on: July 04, 2009, 09:27:29 AM »
Quote from: ignatio on July 04, 2009, 09:25:06 AM
"Frame of reference" means nothing.

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

Doesn't look like nothing to me.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

ignatio

  • 9
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #149 on: July 04, 2009, 09:37:42 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 04, 2009, 09:27:29 AM
Quote from: ignatio on July 04, 2009, 09:25:06 AM
"Frame of reference" means nothing.

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

Doesn't look like nothing to me.

Anyone can write a wikipedia page. Show me the evidence that "Frames of reference" exist.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up
« previous next »