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] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

  • 183 Replies
  • 47910 Views
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #60 on: July 01, 2009, 08:25:33 AM »
You were simply trying to distract from the comments I made about The Bedford Level Experiment:

Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 06:40:42 AM
The Bedford Level Experiment proved that the earth had a curvature (Henry Yule Oldham experiment), this has been repeated many times with the same result.
I am fairly sure we were given a demonstration of this experiment in secondary school (dont remember where though).

To be honest I'm surprised you didnt catch me out of spelling 'proved' wrong.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #61 on: July 01, 2009, 08:27:23 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 08:25:33 AM
You were simply trying to distract from the comments I made about The Bedford Level Experiment:

Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 06:40:42 AM
The Bedford Level Experiment proved that the earth had a curvature (Henry Yule Oldham experiment), this has been repeated many times with the same result.
I am fairly sure we were given a demonstration of this experiment in secondary school (dont remember where though).

To be honest I'm surprised you didnt catch me out of spelling 'proved' wrong.

I'm not trying to distract from anything. If what you say is true, it simply provides evidence for EA theory.
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 #62 on: July 01, 2009, 08:30:29 AM »
Does it matter how we got off topic? Can we go back to talking about Rowbotham vs bendy light?

In my previous posts I showed how Rowbotham was in error and how his peer reviewed BLE was flawed. Thus making a prety strong case against the basic Ideas of a FE.

Though If I were a modern FE proponent I would not bother with any of Rowbothams ideas any way. There are far too many holes in his thories, predictions, and findings to base and FE ideas on.

If I were an FE guy I would have to vote that light bends and rowbotham did not prove anything. But I'm a Re guy and not invited to that poll. nor is there a satisfactory answer for me to vote on anyway.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #63 on: July 01, 2009, 08:36:59 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 08:27:23 AM
I'm not trying to distract from anything. If what you say is true, it simply provides evidence for EA theory.

Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #64 on: July 01, 2009, 08:41:23 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 08:36:59 AM
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.

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

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #65 on: July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.


For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.
Logged
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #66 on: July 01, 2009, 09:23:54 AM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.


For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.


Agreed. The BLEis in now way proof of a flat earth. At best it confirms curvature or gives evidence for EA.
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 #67 on: July 01, 2009, 09:27:52 AM »
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on July 01, 2009, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.


For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.


Agreed. The BLEis in now way proof of a flat earth. At best it confirms curvature or gives evidence for EA.
An argument could easily be made for the validity of Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham bedford experiments.
Logged
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #68 on: July 01, 2009, 10:28:15 AM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 01, 2009, 09:27:52 AM
Quote from: Sentient Pizza on July 01, 2009, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
This could easily be interpreted as evidence for EA.


For the record, I'm never having kids, I hate babies.


Agreed. The BLEis in now way proof of a flat earth. At best it confirms curvature or gives evidence for EA.
An argument could easily be made for the validity of Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham bedford experiments.
Again.... totaly agreed. Every attempt at duplicationg Rowbothams flat earth findings has turned up evidence for the round earth or possible EA. I only state posible EA due to FE own admission that this is a theory in development at this time. As far as I am concerned these experiments are prety conclusive evidence for a RE. I'll glady re-view my judgment when a more refined EA is presented. As I wuold expect anyone to do when new evidence is presented.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #69 on: July 01, 2009, 11:06:15 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 08:41:23 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 08:36:59 AM
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.

Proof?

Good luck convincing anyone that it's possible to see or with current techniques, measure light disappear into a black hole. There's a reason they are called black holes you know. At the minute, black holes are nothing but an extreme likely theory - thus, the only places where light can be confirmed to mathematically bend are also theoretical.

Just because he can't prove his statement mathematically (it's unreasonable to ask anyone to in all honesty, it's an accepted theory in the scientific community however, which you should know if you are so god damned clever), doesn't mean that light can bend as willy nilly as this thread alludes to in places.

Arrogance is one thing - you Robosteve, are outright annoying. I would rather argue with Tom Bishop than you.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #70 on: July 01, 2009, 01:15:57 PM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 01, 2009, 11:06:15 AM
Good luck convincing anyone that it's possible to see or with current techniques, measure light disappear into a black hole. There's a reason they are called black holes you know. At the minute, black holes are nothing but an extreme likely theory - thus, the only places where light can be confirmed to mathematically bend are also theoretical.

Just because he can't prove his statement mathematically (it's unreasonable to ask anyone to in all honesty, it's an accepted theory in the scientific community however, which you should know if you are so god damned clever), doesn't mean that light can bend as willy nilly as this thread alludes to in places.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want proof that light bends in a strong gravitational field; I'm well aware of this theory and accept it just as most of the rest of the scientific community does. I want him to provide some sort of evidence that light cannot bend in any other way.

Quote from: julianmartin on July 01, 2009, 11:06:15 AM
Arrogance is one thing - you Robosteve, are outright annoying. I would rather argue with Tom Bishop than you.

Then why respond to my posts?
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 #71 on: July 02, 2009, 03:24:03 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 01:15:57 PM
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want proof that light bends in a strong gravitational field; I'm well aware of this theory and accept it just as most of the rest of the scientific community does. I want him to provide some sort of evidence that light cannot bend in any other way.

Yes, you should have been a lot clearer.

You know full well it can't (bar possibly seriously extreme EM fields, which the earth doesn't have as pretty much no electronic device would work), you're just being a troll.

Quote
Then why respond to my posts?

Because I find it entertaining that a 19 year old really thinks he is as clever as he acts.

I do wonder - are you RE or FE...?
Logged
?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #72 on: July 02, 2009, 03:50:12 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 08:41:23 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 08:36:59 AM
Light cannot bend unless under huge gravitational force like a galaxy or a blackhole where space-time gets distorted.

Proof?
  Proof is nice word. I also want a proof that EA bends light and the way to detect it. EA is still the more mystical thing as gravity or gravitational force because you can't measure or detect the EA in any way.
Logged
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #73 on: July 02, 2009, 04:36:01 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 01:15:57 PM
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want proof that light bends in a strong gravitational field; I'm well aware of this theory and accept it just as most of the rest of the scientific community does. I want him to provide some sort of evidence that light cannot bend in any other way.

Well no-one has been able to bend light, light is after all electromagnetic radiation which is known to travel straight. This is how radio and tv is transmitted and we all know what happens when something tall gets in the way of you and the transmitter that could be thousands of miles away.

When you view light waves they always travel in a straight line, for example when light is refracted through water its not bent but its wavelength has changed so it changes direction but its fundemental frequency stays constant and is still seen as a straight line.

If you look at lasers they always travel straight, you could shine a laser for miles and it would still be straight. If light didnt travel in straight lines fiber optics wouldnt work.

Proove to me light bends and you will change my understanding, but you wont be able to as it doesnt bend anywhere!! (except theorised distortion through space-time fluctuations)

I believe robotsteve that you have no knowledge about anything and are just a troll.
Please finish school and then maybe we will listen to you.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #74 on: July 02, 2009, 07:27:13 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 02, 2009, 03:24:03 AM
You know full well it can't (bar possibly seriously extreme EM fields, which the earth doesn't have as pretty much no electronic device would work), you're just being a troll.

This is your proof?

Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 03:50:12 AM
Proof is nice word. I also want a proof that EA bends light and the way to detect it. EA is still the more mystical thing as gravity or gravitational force because you can't measure or detect the EA in any way.

EA theory is one explanation for the horizon. The most common alternative theory is a Round Earth. As yet, I do not know of any practical means with which to differentiate between the two.

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 04:36:01 AM
Well no-one has been able to bend light, light is after all electromagnetic radiation which is known to travel straight. This is how radio and tv is transmitted and we all know what happens when something tall gets in the way of you and the transmitter that could be thousands of miles away.

"No-one has been able to bend light" = "light can't bend"? Also, light doesn't just bend around objects to get to you; EA theory, when it is completed, will describe a very well-defined curvature.

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 04:36:01 AM
When you view light waves they always travel in a straight line, for example when light is refracted through water its not bent but its wavelength has changed so it changes direction but its fundemental frequency stays constant and is still seen as a straight line.

I am familiar with the concept of refraction, thanks.

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 04:36:01 AM
If you look at lasers they always travel straight, you could shine a laser for miles and it would still be straight.

And I suppose you saying so makes it true?

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 04:36:01 AM
If light didnt travel in straight lines fiber optics wouldnt work.

Rubbish. Have you studied optics at all?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #75 on: July 02, 2009, 07:39:12 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 07:27:13 AM
Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 03:50:12 AM
Proof is nice word. I also want a proof that EA bends light and the way to detect it. EA is still the more mystical thing as gravity or gravitational force because you can't measure or detect the EA in any way.
EA theory is one explanation for the horizon. The most common alternative theory is a Round Earth. As yet, I do not know of any practical means with which to differentiate between the two.
Yes, you do. You can't say that you don't because there is handful of methods brought up in this forum and surely teachers have explained some methods in your schools(if not, my bad then). Round earth curvature can be measured with current technology(triangulation, lasers, whatever) but your EA existence can't be measured or proven in any way.

Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 07:27:13 AM
"No-one has been able to bend light" = "light can't bend"? Also, light doesn't just bend around objects to get to you; EA theory, when it is completed, will describe a very well-defined curvature.

 There is quite simple experiment with laser and mirrors which you can do and see if light really bends. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27667.msg652949#msg652949 . So, you can concoct your equations but you can't never show it practically.
Logged
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #76 on: July 02, 2009, 08:39:11 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 07:27:13 AM
Rubbish. Have you studied optics at all?

Yes and infact I use them and have studied them in University.

Fiberoptics work on a basis of total internal reflection, the light source (lasers usually) is pointed down the cable and reflected internally and comes out the other end.
Fibers can be up to around 17KM in length and maintain very high bitrates (> 10 Gb/s) and maintain quite low power consumption. If light were to bend at all within this cable the signal could end up bouncing in the wrong direction and the signal lost. High bit rates would not be possible in this situation.

You sir are obviously the one who has no idea about light or fiber optics, go back to school.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #77 on: July 02, 2009, 08:43:56 AM »
Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 07:39:12 AM
Yes, you do. You can't say that you don't because there is handful of methods brought up in this forum and surely teachers have explained some methods in your schools(if not, my bad then). Round earth curvature can be measured with current technology(triangulation, lasers, whatever) but your EA existence can't be measured or proven in any way.

How can you say that when the theory isn't even complete yet? Allow me to publish my documentation regarding EA canon (next semester starts Monday 27th of July, I'm hoping to have it done by then - unfortunately it has been set back considerably by studies during the previous semester) and then we can discuss ways to distinguish between RE and FE+EA.

Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 07:39:12 AM
There is quite simple experiment with laser and mirrors which you can do and see if light really bends. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27667.msg652949#msg652949 . So, you can concoct your equations but you can't never show it practically.

They would likely have used one of two methods to construct such an accurately straight device; one, they built it according to the Earth's surface and/or gravitational field, accounting for the curvature of the Earth; or two, they measured its straightness using light rays. If the Earth is flat and light bends, both would have resulted in a curved apparatus. Indeed, the picture posted to show that it is perfectly straight uses visible light as evidence - all that really proves is that the accelerator is the same shape traced out by a light ray, whatever that may be.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #78 on: July 02, 2009, 08:45:27 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 08:39:11 AM
Yes and infact I use them and have studied them in University.

Fiberoptics work on a basis of total internal reflection, the light source (lasers usually) is pointed down the cable and reflected internally and comes out the other end.
Fibers can be up to around 17KM in length and maintain very high bitrates (> 10 Gb/s) and maintain quite low power consumption. If light were to bend at all within this cable the signal could end up bouncing in the wrong direction and the signal lost. High bit rates would not be possible in this situation.

You sir are obviously the one who has no idea about light or fiber optics, go back to school.

I am aware of how fibre optics work, thanks. If your reasoning were at all true, fibre optics would fail as soon as one bent the optic fibre even slightly.
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 #79 on: July 02, 2009, 09:02:19 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 08:45:27 AM
I am aware of how fibre optics work, thanks. If your reasoning were at all true, fibre optics would fail as soon as one bent the optic fibre even slightly.



bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce, bend optic a bit for a laugh, bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce....SCHWING badass fast data STILL comes out the other end. That's how fibre optics work.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #80 on: July 02, 2009, 09:02:50 AM »
Quote from: zork on July 02, 2009, 07:39:12 AM
There is quite simple experiment with laser and mirrors which you can do and see if light really bends.

Bouncing a laser between mirrors should be a good way to prove/disprove bendy light, right?

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 08:54:02 AM
You can see if a laser would bend according to EA by bouncing it back and forth between two long mirrors that are far apart. If you place the mirrors 50 meters apart perfectly perpendicular to a flat surface, position the laser horizontally, then bounce it back and forth at least 16 times, the beam should have decreased in height by 0.2 meters. If someone manages to produce a series of horizontal beams with identical height in such an experiment, would that prove EA wrong, or is it more complex than I assumed?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #81 on: July 02, 2009, 09:08:37 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 02, 2009, 09:02:19 AM
bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce, bend optic a bit for a laugh, bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce....SCHWING badass fast data STILL comes out the other end. That's how fibre optics work.

Uh, was that English?

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 09:02:50 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 08:54:02 AM
You can see if a laser would bend according to EA by bouncing it back and forth between two long mirrors that are far apart. If you place the mirrors 50 meters apart perfectly perpendicular to a flat surface, position the laser horizontally, then bounce it back and forth at least 16 times, the beam should have decreased in height by 0.2 meters. If someone manages to produce a series of horizontal beams with identical height in such an experiment, would that prove EA wrong, or is it more complex than I assumed?

First of all, how do you propose to ensure that two mirrors so far apart are perfectly parallel? Second of all, how did you calculate the figure of 0.2 metres?
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 #82 on: July 02, 2009, 09:19:28 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 09:08:37 AM
First of all, how do you propose to ensure that two mirrors so far apart are perfectly parallel? Second of all, how did you calculate the figure of 0.2 metres?
Yes, I realized that it would be very difficult to get the mirrors perfectly parralel. However, you can make small corrections until the beams are all perfectly horizontal. This would not be possible with bendy light. To prove bendy light correct, even if you have trouble getting the mirrors perfectly parralel, you should be able to demonstrate some curvature. Now, for my calculation, which I believe is correct, and you're more than welcome to suggest a better one.

r = radius of earth = 6,371,000 meters
d=distance travelled by light = 1600 meters (back and forth 16 times)
c=change in height

r2 + d2 = (c+r)2
Solve for c. I don't know how to do square roots in bbcode, so I trust you can simplify the equation yourself.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 09:25:29 AM by cdenley »
Logged
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #83 on: July 02, 2009, 09:37:38 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 09:08:37 AM
Quote from: julianmartin on July 02, 2009, 09:02:19 AM
bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce, bend optic a bit for a laugh, bounce bounce bounce bounce bounce....SCHWING badass fast data STILL comes out the other end. That's how fibre optics work.

Uh, was that English?


It was a textual rendition of TIR as a bit of a joke to lighten the mood...someone had to do it since you seem to be the sternest person on the internet that I've ever had the displeasure of coming into contact with.

You clearly have no sense on humour on top of your apparently lack of emotion or soul - quite unfortunate. Not sure how I'd cope personally.

Also - you forgot to answer, are you RE or FE?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #84 on: July 02, 2009, 09:49:08 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 09:19:28 AM
Yes, I realized that it would be very difficult to get the mirrors perfectly parralel. However, you can make small corrections until the beams are all perfectly horizontal. This would not be possible with bendy light.

You would not be able to distinguish between parallel mirrors with straight light rays and curved light with mirrors perpendicular to the light itself at two different locations. So yes, you could produce the same effect if light rays are curved.

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 09:19:28 AM
r = radius of earth = 6,371,000 meters
d=distance travelled by light = 1600 meters (back and forth 16 times)
c=change in height

r2 + d2 = (c+r)2
Solve for c. I don't know how to do square roots in bbcode, so I trust you can simplify the equation yourself.

This is how much the apparent elevation of the light ray would increase in RET; it does not necessarily correspond to the offset caused by EA theory under FET.

Quote from: julianmartin on July 02, 2009, 09:37:38 AM
It was a textual rendition of TIR as a bit of a joke to lighten the mood...someone had to do it since you seem to be the sternest person on the internet that I've ever had the displeasure of coming into contact with.

You clearly have no sense on humour on top of your apparently lack of emotion or soul - quite unfortunate. Not sure how I'd cope personally.

Sorry, I assumed you were attempting to convey a point. You'd be surprised by how many people on here actually do use that sort of language when debating.

Quote from: julianmartin on July 02, 2009, 09:37:38 AM
Also - you forgot to answer, are you RE or FE?

I didn't forget to answer, I chose not to.
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 #85 on: July 02, 2009, 10:37:50 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 08:45:27 AM
I am aware of how fibre optics work, thanks. If your reasoning were at all true, fibre optics would fail as soon as one bent the optic fibre even slightly.

If you were aware of how fiber optics work then you wouldn't have said that. (thansk julian for the amusing picture, well summed up)
The simple fact they work over more than 6 miles completely disproves "bendy light" as if light were to bend as much as 1um (micro-meter) the beam would get distorted.

You are basically an idiot, I have a degree in electronics engineering and several of my modules included optics and fiber optic communication. You obviously have no idea about fiber optics.
Just be quiet troll and leave the discussions to the grown-ups.
Logged
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #86 on: July 02, 2009, 10:58:49 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 09:49:08 AM
You would not be able to distinguish between parallel mirrors with straight light rays and curved light with mirrors perpendicular to the light itself at two different locations. So yes, you could produce the same effect if light rays are curved.
If light were to travel in a curve, then it would be impossible to form a straight line in the experiment. It would keep increasing in height the further the light went. The rate at which it increases would increase with distance as well, if it were to create the illusion of a curved earth surface. You could angle the mirrors to make one segment between the mirrors straight, but you couldn't compensate for a growing height increase.

Actually, now that I think about it, you might be right. The mirrors not being parallel could increasingly change the direction of the laser with each bounce, potentially compensating for the curvature of the light. The experiment would require perfectly parallel mirrors. Any ideas to achieve this? Would measuring the distance from the mirror tops and bottoms be sufficient?

If my calculations are correct, if the mirrors are 2 meters tall, you would need to measure the top and bottom accurate within 0.056 meters (5.6 cm) for the resulting laser beam to be accurate within 1 meter after traveling 1600 meters. This should be acceptable.


Quote from: Robosteve on July 02, 2009, 09:49:08 AM
This is how much the apparent elevation of the light ray would increase in RET; it does not necessarily correspond to the offset caused by EA theory under FET.
Well, you're trying to explain how the observations of the earth's curvature in RET can be an illusion. Are you also claiming that RET's observed curvature is not consistent with it's radius? What height increase would you expect for a laser travelling 1600 meters?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 11:36:35 AM by cdenley »
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #87 on: July 02, 2009, 11:43:08 AM »
A quick question FEM people.

If light bends how can you be sure where the sun, moon, antimoon, and the stars(/all other things in the sky), actually are?
If light bends then your measurements (if thats what they are) of the sun and everything will be way off.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #88 on: July 02, 2009, 12:04:35 PM »
Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 10:37:50 AM
If you were aware of how fiber optics work then you wouldn't have said that. (thansk julian for the amusing picture, well summed up)
The simple fact they work over more than 6 miles completely disproves "bendy light" as if light were to bend as much as 1um (micro-meter) the beam would get distorted.

You are not even using proper units for curvature. A bend of 1 µm makes no sense; curvature is measured in units of inverse distance. How can you expect me to believe you know what you are talking about when you can't even get your units right?

Quote from: danwood on July 02, 2009, 10:37:50 AM
You are basically an idiot, I have a degree in electronics engineering and several of my modules included optics and fiber optic communication. You obviously have no idea about fiber optics.
Just be quiet troll and leave the discussions to the grown-ups.

I don't give two shits what degrees you do or do not have.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2009, 12:08:39 PM by Robosteve »
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #89 on: July 02, 2009, 12:07:38 PM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 10:58:49 AM
If my calculations are correct, if the mirrors are 2 meters tall, you would need to measure the top and bottom accurate within 0.056 meters (5.6 cm) for the resulting laser beam to be accurate within 1 meter after traveling 1600 meters. This should be acceptable.

What are you going to use to measure it? You can't use light, because we are testing whether light travels straight or not and if it doesn't then it will invalidate the measurements, and you can't use the surface of the Earth because a flat surface is required and we can't assume the Earth to be any particular shape in this experiment.

Quote from: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 10:58:49 AM
Well, you're trying to explain how the observations of the earth's curvature in RET can be an illusion. Are you also claiming that RET's observed curvature is not consistent with it's radius? What height increase would you expect for a laser travelling 1600 meters?

I would think it would have to approximate the RE prediction in order for existing data to make sense. I'll get back to you on more precise figures when the theory is complete.
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] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »