A crude diagram of new bendy light model

  • 117 Replies
  • 25261 Views
*

Euclid

  • 943
A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« on: July 12, 2009, 01:35:27 AM »


Suppose there is a cloud of aether, dark matter, what have you, above the earth.  The index of refraction of this cloud increases toward the center, as shown by the increasingly darker ovals in the picture.  Inside the cloud is a sphere of stars and the other heavenly bodies.

This model enables the entire southern annulus to view the same stars.  The rays drawn show the path of light from the north and south pole stars.  At the equator, an observer will see the pole stars on opposite ends of the horizon.  The south "pole" would be the location where the rays are vertical as shown, though in reality, the south pole would be a ring, not a point.  In addition, looking at the southern pole stars would always point south, another difficulty of previous models.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2009, 04:00:38 AM »
I don't think I understand. What do observers towards the edge see when looking out? Are you saying they look at what is really an empty patch of sky but the light is bent by the aether to provide the illusion of stars in that position?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2009, 04:29:47 AM »
I have often considered something along these lines, but the problem is that it would have to be mathematically consistent. You also need to account for the sun first anf foremost.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2009, 12:36:18 PM »
Do you mind if I include a mention of this in the EA theory introductory document I am going to be preparing over the next two weeks? I want to have an appendix with several possible variations on the basic idea.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2009, 12:38:44 PM »
I have often considered something along these lines, but the problem is that it would have to be mathematically consistent. You also need to account for the sun first anf foremost.

The sun would orbit roughly around the equator of the sphere of stars.  I don't think there is any difficulty in explaining the sun's motions.

I don't think I understand. What do observers towards the edge see when looking out? Are you saying they look at what is really an empty patch of sky but the light is bent by the aether to provide the illusion of stars in that position?

Yeah, pretty much.  The stars don't actually stretch across above the entire Earth, but are localized on a small sphere above the north pole.  The aether then bends the light so the image of the stars is seen spread across the sky.

Do you mind if I include a mention of this in the EA theory introductory document I am going to be preparing over the next two weeks? I want to have an appendix with several possible variations on the basic idea.

Go ahead.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2009, 12:59:11 PM »
At least with this model there won't be any gaps inbetween different "gears".
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2009, 01:01:53 PM »
It would be nice if you could produce three more diagrams ...

One each for the two poles and the equator ...

And show the light paths for stars directly above and at the two "horizons".
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2009, 02:02:11 PM »
Ingenious exercise in inventing a flimsy straw to grasp at in a desperate attempt to support an otherwise untenable POV.  If you are both honest and rational, you will have to admit that this hypothesis is far more complicated than than the RET explanation that already adequately explains why the stars appear to move as they do.  Besides that, it is a completely untestable hypothesis, as far as I can tell, thus it does not have even the remotest connection to honest scientific inquiry or reality.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2009, 02:06:41 PM »
Ingenious exercise in inventing a flimsy straw to grasp at in a desperate attempt to support an otherwise untenable POV.  If you are both honest and rational, you will have to admit that this hypothesis is far more complicated than than the RET explanation that already adequately explains why the stars appear to move as they do.  Besides that, it is a completely untestable hypothesis, as far as I can tell, thus it does not have even the remotest connection to honest scientific inquiry or reality.

How is it any more untestable than RET? As far as I can tell, this hypothesis would have the same result as viewed from Earth as RET, so if you're arguing that this is untestable because it can't be distinguished from a Round Earth, then RET is equally untestable and therefore unscientific by being indistinguishable from this hypothesis.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2009, 02:21:24 PM »

How is it any more untestable than RET? As far as I can tell, this hypothesis would have the same result as viewed from Earth as RET, so if you're arguing that this is untestable because it can't be distinguished from a Round Earth, then RET is equally untestable and therefore unscientific by being indistinguishable from this hypothesis.

It still cannot be denied that it miserably fails the test of "Occam's Razor."  Besides, the apparent movement of the stars in a "celestial sphere" is far from the only compelling evidence for RET.

One more thing, the RET view of the "Celestial Sphere" actually can be and has been tested.  The simple fact that celestial navigation has been successfully used for centuries to compute courses and distances between various destinations in both the northern and southern hemispheres is extremely compelling evidence for the RET view, like it or not.  I take back the accusation that Euclid's new bendy light hypothesis cannot be tested.  It has already been thoroughly tested and falsified.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2009, 02:48:53 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2009, 02:44:21 PM »
 Does this model relies on FE map where the north pole isn't in the center of the map? Is the Sun inside the Sphere of stars which sits constantly above the north pole or does the Sun move with the Sphere of stars somehow?
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.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2009, 02:52:48 PM »
One more thing, the RET view of the "Celestial Sphere" actually can be and has been tested.  The simple fact that celestial navigation has been successfully used for centuries to compute courses and distances between various destinations in both the northern and southern hemispheres is extremely compelling evidence for the RET view, like it or not.  I take back the accusation that Euclid's new bendy light hypothesis cannot be tested.  It has already been thoroughly tested and falsified.

How does this support RET over Euclid's hypothesis if they have exactly the same effect as viewed from the surface of the Earth?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2009, 03:11:24 PM »


How does this support RET over Euclid's hypothesis if they have exactly the same effect as viewed from the surface of the Earth?

You are missing a painfully obvious point here!  If Euclid's hypothesis were correct, celestial navigation could not come even close to yielding the same results for courses and distances that have been observed to be true for centuries.  Especially in the southern hemisphere!  Actually computations on courses and distances in the southern hemisphere might actually be the same, in both cases, but the computations would be found to be grossly in error, if FET were actually true, and it has long been known that they are not.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2009, 03:34:19 PM by Rational U.S. Viking »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2009, 03:21:25 PM »
  There is one thing that bothers me about this hypothesis. It seems that it is build up with assumption that we don't have any technology which can observe or measure all kind of things in atmosphere, whatever is up there up to 100 or more kilometers at all.
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.

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2009, 01:56:14 AM »
It would also be nice if you could show that stars along The Celestial Equator will move along the sky in a straight line with this new model.

I have been trying to do this in my head and it makes my brain hurt.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2009, 02:04:51 AM »
It would also be nice if you could show that stars along The Celestial Equator will move along the sky in a straight line with this new model.

This would also fix the Sun/Equinox problem because you could have The Sun orbitting the sphere of stars along The Celestial Equator and it would then pass overhead over all points on the earth's Equatopr (as is necessary on The Equinoxes).

This model might even permit 24-hour Sun during Antarctic Summers ...

(You are on to a winner here!)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2009, 04:43:43 AM »
You are missing a painfully obvious point here!  If Euclid's hypothesis were correct, celestial navigation could not come even close to yielding the same results for courses and distances that have been observed to be true for centuries.  Especially in the southern hemisphere!  Actually computations on courses and distances in the southern hemisphere might actually be the same, in both cases, but the computations would be found to be grossly in error, if FET were actually true, and it has long been known that they are not.

Evidence?

There is one thing that bothers me about this hypothesis. It seems that it is build up with assumption that we don't have any technology which can observe or measure all kind of things in atmosphere, whatever is up there up to 100 or more kilometers at all.

What? Please try to make sense, it will make your argument a lot stronger.

It would also be nice if you could show that stars along The Celestial Equator will move along the sky in a straight line with this new model.

I have been trying to do this in my head and it makes my brain hurt.

It seems like it would be fairly straightforward, if we consider this an addition to conventional EA theory instead of a replacement for it. And you are correct about the midnight Sun in Antarctica; this model seems a much simpler explanation than my Sky Mirror hypothesis. I'd be definitely willing to favour this model if it could be shown to work.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2009, 06:47:35 AM »
You are missing a painfully obvious point here!  If Euclid's hypothesis were correct, celestial navigation could not come even close to yielding the same results for courses and distances that have been observed to be true for centuries.  Especially in the southern hemisphere!  Actually computations on courses and distances in the southern hemisphere might actually be the same, in both cases, but the computations would be found to be grossly in error, if FET were actually true, and it has long been known that they are not.

Evidence?

Since you live in the southern hemiplane, it would be of invaluable aid to the FE cause if you could gather some evidence for yourself.  All you have to do is measure out one degree of longitude from whatever line of latitude happens to be convenient for you and then compare that value against what RET and FET would predict.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2009, 07:58:49 AM »
this model seems a much simpler explanation than my Sky Mirror hypothesis.

Are there any threads I can read about the Sky Mirrors? Sounds interesting.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2009, 08:35:14 AM »
Since you live in the southern hemiplane, it would be of invaluable aid to the FE cause if you could gather some evidence for yourself.  All you have to do is measure out one degree of longitude from whatever line of latitude happens to be convenient for you and then compare that value against what RET and FET would predict.

I'm not entirely sure how that would be feasible. It's very difficult to measure the length of a direct east-west line.

Are there any threads I can read about the Sky Mirrors? Sounds interesting.

Not as yet, and there probably won't be for a while as I'm currently focusing on EA theory. There may never be if Euclid's hypothesis turns out to be the superior model.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42250
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2009, 08:48:28 AM »
Since you live in the southern hemiplane, it would be of invaluable aid to the FE cause if you could gather some evidence for yourself.  All you have to do is measure out one degree of longitude from whatever line of latitude happens to be convenient for you and then compare that value against what RET and FET would predict.

I'm not entirely sure how that would be feasible. It's very difficult to measure the length of a direct east-west line.

Come now, you're a bright boy.  I'm sure that you can figure something out.  After all, imagine the benefit to all mankind if you can help develop the true FE model and dispel the RE lies once and for all.  If one degree is too hard, then maybe one minute of one degree will be sufficient.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2009, 08:52:07 AM »
Come now, you're a bright boy.  I'm sure that you can figure something out.  After all, imagine the benefit to all mankind if you can help develop the true FE model and dispel the RE lies once and for all.  If one degree is too hard, then maybe one minute of one degree will be sufficient.

I thought about that, but the smaller the angle I attempt to measure, the more accurately I need to be able to determine my longitude. On top of which, I am not particularly mobile at this point in time, having lost my car in a collision last year. I may be able to borrow my father's car when I return to Sydney in a couple of weeks, however.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2009, 06:53:01 PM »



Please stop being willfully obtuse!  I repeat: it is painfully obvious!  Many generations of mariners have successfully shown for centuries that celestial navigation, that absolutely depends on the world being round and the heavens really being as they appear to be, is effective for computing courses and distances between destinations of the earth's surface in both northern and southern hemispheres.   If the southern "celestial pole," as it appears to us, is merely an illusion caused by "Bendy light" according to Euclid's imaginary and unjustifiable theory of EA, this could not possibly be true! 

And don't you dare try to tell me that all the historical accounts and logs of sea voyages using ceslestial navigation are a product of centuries of willfull fabrication by generations of dishonest mariners or by anyone else.  You have absolutely zero justification for assuming or even suggesting  that, other than the realization that your POV cannot be otherwise defended successfully or credibly!

Besides, the fact still remains that Euclid's hypothesis miserably fails the test of Occam's Razor!

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2009, 06:58:51 PM »
Please stop being willfully obtuse!  I repeat: it is painfully obvious!  Many generations of mariners have successfully shown for centuries that celestial navigation, that absolutely depends on the world being round and the heavens really being as they appear to be, is effective for computing courses and distances between destinations of the earth's surface in both northern and southern hemispheres.   If the southern "celestial pole," as it appears to us, is merely an illusion caused by "Bendy light" according to Euclid's imaginary and unjustifiable theory of EA, this could not possibly be true! 

And don't you dare try to tell me that all the historical accounts and logs of sea voyages using ceslestial navigation are a product of centuries of willfull fabrication by generations of dishonest mariners or by anyone else.  You have absolutely zero justification for assuming or even suggesting  that, other than the realization that your POV cannot be otherwise defended successfully or credibly!

I haven't seen you provide any historical accounts to support your case, so you have zero justification for claiming that they exist.

Besides, the fact still remains that Euclid's hypothesis miserably fails the test of Occam's Razor!

Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2009, 07:06:02 PM »
Quote
Besides, the fact still remains that Euclid's hypothesis miserably fails the test of Occam's Razor!

Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy.

Not to mention completely subjective.  Simplicity is subjective and depends highly on one's preconceptions of reality.  Which is simpler?  That only light is bending through refraction, a process we know a lot about, or that the ENTIRE EARTH is bending, governed by some interaction whose mechanism we know nothing about?
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

?

utilitarianism

  • 176
  • do you know the muffin man...
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2009, 11:16:44 PM »
I'm not quite getting how the movements of the sphere create a spherical appearance, especially with regard to star trails

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2009, 11:46:20 PM »

I haven't seen you provide any historical accounts to support your case, so you have zero justification for claiming that they exist.


I think you know full well that they exist.  Suppose I show you that they do exist and that they document and corroborate the successful use of celestial navigation based on RET being correct.  Would you then admit that the credibility of FET is destroyed, or at least seriously damaged?  If not, what would be the point of providing them for you?  That would only confirm what I already suspect, namely that you are bound and determined to believe in or at least support FET whether it is true or not.

BTW, thank you for suggesting that I provide that info.  I have already starting searching the internet for information about the history of celestial navigation and historical ship's logs and found many thousands of promising sites that are potentially very interesting and informative.  I'm sure that perusing them will fill many pleasant hours and refer me to many interesting book titles to look for in my local public library. :)

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2009, 12:00:43 AM »
I have often considered something along these lines, but the problem is that it would have to be mathematically consistent. You also need to account for the sun first anf foremost.

Well, that is at least an improvement over Grogberries' attitude who seems to believe that mathematics is merely a fanciful construct that has no bearing at all on reality.

Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2009, 01:24:14 AM »
Quote
Besides, the fact still remains that Euclid's hypothesis miserably fails the test of Occam's Razor!

Occam's Razor is a logical fallacy.

Not to mention completely subjective.  Simplicity is subjective and depends highly on one's preconceptions of reality.  Which is simpler?  That only light is bending through refraction, a process we know a lot about, or that the ENTIRE EARTH is bending, governed by some interaction whose mechanism we know nothing about?


I hardly need to tell you that I strongly disagree with you assessment of Occam's Razor.  I doubt that you would find very many, if any, competent and productive scientists who would not.  Like it or not, Occam's Razor has served the cause of advancing human knowledge very well.  You object to Occam's Razor only because it so devastatingly damages the credibility of FET.

Let me ask you.  What is really simpler.  That the movements of the heavenly bodies (such as their daily rising and setting and apparent circular movement around an axis formed by the north and south celestial poles), the constancy of the apparent size of the sun as it moves from horizon to horizion, etc.) are really as they appear, or that it is all one gigantic illusion caused by purely hypothetical, complex and undemonstrable phemonena such as "bendy light," Rowbothams's demonstrably false laws of perspective and so forth?  (and if you think those laws have not been thoroughly demolished numerous times on thes forums, you just haven't been paying very good attention!)

The concept of gravity (or gravitation, if you prefer as if there were any significant difference between the two) is not really all that complex.  I admit that we can't say why gravitation exists, but you cannot honestly deny that its effects have been observed and measured with great precision, and that the orbital movements of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn (for example) around their primaries seem to strongly corroborate current gravitational theory.  It is unreasonable to expect science to explain why the Universe is as it is.  The most we can reasonably expect science to do is describe how the Universe is and (I admit) we will always fall somewhat short of that.  That does not justify insisting on highly complex explanations for observed phenomena in preference to much simpler explanations that satisfactorily explain the same observations!

Like it or not, the UA hypothesis is much less believable than gravitation, and even many (or at least some) FE'ers justifiably reject it.

BTW, I agree that much is known about the refraction of light, but judging by your comments on it , I find entirely laaughable your claim to truly understand it.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 01:35:52 AM by Rational U.S. Viking »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: A crude diagram of new bendy light model
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2009, 01:42:44 AM »
Occam's Razor is wrong because simplicity and less assumptions do not necessarily guarantee a sound argument.