A crude diagram of new bendy light model

Do we all agree that if all light does bend upwards (not just "celestial light") ...

Then The Earth cannot appear / look flat?

Because if light from far away from me is bending upwards on its way to me ...

Then a Flat Earth must appear to bend downwards away from me (invoking reciprocity) - right?

If we do agree this, then could someone please educate Levee so that we won't have to put up with his Toronto pictures again?

Quote from: zork 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.

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

 Sorry, the all thing starts with "Suppose there is...". Why do we have to suppose that there is something up there when we have some techology to observe things what are up there. It only makes sense when we have absolutely no technology.

Does this new Flat Earth Celestial ("Star Sphere") Model work with all Flat Earth maps ...

Or does it need one, and one only?

See, for example:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29967.msg745504#msg745504



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

Sorry, the all thing starts with "Suppose there is...". Why do we have to suppose that there is something up there when we have some techology to observe things what are up there. It only makes sense when we have absolutely no technology.

Baseless supposition brought you Special Relativity. Are you going to denounce that theory now?

Quote from: zork on July 14, 2009, 02:59:24 AM

Sorry, the all thing starts with "Suppose there is...". Why do we have to suppose that there is something up there when we have some techology to observe things what are up there. It only makes sense when we have absolutely no technology.

Baseless supposition brought you Special Relativity. Are you going to denounce that theory now?

  Don't see the relevance here. I just asked why this theory assumes that we don't have any technology to observe things up there.

Don't see the relevance here. I just asked why this theory assumes that we don't have any technology to observe things up there.

Because we don't.

Quote from: zork on July 14, 2009, 01:45:31 PM

Don't see the relevance here. I just asked why this theory assumes that we don't have any technology to observe things up there.

Because we don't.

Yeah, I got the point. You do have technology but instead using it you just prefer to lay down and think what may be up there.

Yeah, I got the point. You do have technology but instead using it you just prefer to lay down and think what may be up there.

What technology do we have that is capable of determining the structure of the celestial plane?

Quote from: zork on July 14, 2009, 02:45:29 PM

Yeah, I got the point. You do have technology but instead using it you just prefer to lay down and think what may be up there.

What technology do we have that is capable of determining the structure of the celestial plane?

Telescopes (visible light, IR, UV, x-ray, etc.) and spectrum analyzers, among others.  And it's observed to be more of a dome than a plane.

Telescopes (visible light, IR, UV, x-ray, etc.) and spectrum analyzers, among others.  And it's observed to be more of a dome than a plane.

Telescopes detect the light as it reaches Earth. They don't give any information as to the structure of the heavens themselves.

Do we all agree that if all light does bend upwards (not just "celestial light") ...

I've been holding off on posting in this topic, because I wanted to give it some thought. As I believe we discussed on .net, I tend to think celestial light is refracted through some medium (just for self-amusement, I've called it a 'firmament'). I'm virtually certain that terrestrial light does not, and tend to agree with James that "Bendy light" is pseudo-science. I'm intrigued by this celestial sphere you've developed, to be perfectly honest, because if tends to agree with my own admitted bias. Would it not be possible under this model that only celestial light is so refracted and that terrestrial light is not?

Also, I will agree that if all light does bend upwards, then the earth would appear to curve or bend away from one.

Quote from: markjo on July 14, 2009, 03:40:57 PM

Telescopes (visible light, IR, UV, x-ray, etc.) and spectrum analyzers, among others.  And it's observed to be more of a dome than a plane.

Telescopes detect the light as it reaches Earth. They don't give any information as to the structure of the heavens themselves.

That's why you use the spectrum analyzers (among other devices) to analyze the light (or other EM radiation) detected by the telescopes to give you insights into the structure of the heavens.

That's why you use the spectrum analyzers (among other devices) to analyze the light (or other EM radiation) detected by the telescopes to give you insights into the structure of the heavens.

Insights, yes. zork was claiming that we could directly measure the structure of the heavens as opposed to supposing about it.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 14, 2009, 02:57:56 AM

Do we all agree that if all light does bend upwards (not just "celestial light") ...

I've been holding off on posting in this topic, because I wanted to give it some thought. As I believe we discussed on .net, I tend to think celestial light is refracted through some medium (just for self-amusement, I've called it a 'firmament'). I'm virtually certain that terrestrial light does not, and tend to agree with James that "Bendy light" is pseudo-science. I'm intrigued by this celestial sphere you've developed, to be perfectly honest, because if tends to agree with my own admitted bias. Would it not be possible under this model that only celestial light is so refracted and that terrestrial light is not?

Also, I will agree that if all light does bend upwards, then the earth would appear to curve or bend away from one.

It is possible that only celestial light is bent.  Consider this mechanism.  Suppose photons can carry some sort of equivalent of charge, which couples them to an as yet undiscovered fundamental force that causes their trajectory to bend.  Furthermore suppose that the heavens are ubiquitous in this sort of charge, and give any photon emanating from them a piece of this "charge".  However, suppose that upon interaction with terrestrial molecules, the photons decay, and lose their "charge" to another weakly interacting particle.  Therefore, the photons' path would no longer bend, and neither would any photons created on Earth.  Of course this is massive speculation, but it shows the celestial/terrestrial split is workable.  The negative aspect of this terrestrial/celestial idea is that it requires new laws of physics.

I admit bendy light is far in the realm of speculation.  It seems pseudoscientific since there is such limited evidence we can use to investigate it.  However, all FE'ers need to realize that bendy light must exist.  As shown by simple geometric calculations, Rowbotham's perspective model is completely inadequate to explain sunsets.  The traditional model also is severely limited in its ability to predict the length of days and the nature of celestial motions in the southern annulus.

Yet, could it not be that the celestial refractive medium simply does not extend to the atmoplane? Does this not eliminate the need for your photons to carry hypothetical charges?

Quote from: Jack on July 06, 2009, 08:13:18 PM

Occam's Razor is wrong because simplicity and less assumptions do not necessarily guarantee a sound argument.

The simplest explanation that satifactorily explains the observed phenomenon is the only logical starting point.  It is extremely illogical and even foolish to add additional complexity unless and until it is needed to explain observations that the original, simpler hypothesis or theory cannot satisfactorily explain.

Yet, could it not be that the celestial refractive medium simply does not extend to the atmoplane? Does this not eliminate the need for your photons to carry hypothetical charges?

No, non-negligible bending of light near the ground is necessary to make things like sunsets work.

I'm not convinced that's the case. Can you explain why a photon losing a charge in the atmosphere in your example would be any different than a photon no longer being refracted through a loftier medium?

No, non-negligible bending of light near the ground is necessary to make things like sunsets work.

I like your hypothesis, but I don't like the idea of it extending to ground level. I feel that this would not produce the observed bending effect, and that Dark Energy is our best bet for explaining terrestrial curvature of light rays.

Incidentally, I am changing my approach to EA theory now that I have begun seriously developing documentation on it. I am no longer assuming a particular shape, but rather assuming a simple relationship between the angle the light makes with the horizontal and the magnitude of the force - more specifically, the force is directly proportional to the cosine of the angle the light ray makes with the horizontal. I will then work backwards and attempt to find parametric equations for the curve.

Quote from: Jack on July 14, 2009, 01:42:44 AM

Quote from: Jack on July 06, 2009, 08:13:18 PM

Occam's Razor is wrong because simplicity and less assumptions do not necessarily guarantee a sound argument.

The simplest explanation that satifactorily explains the observed phenomenon is the only logical starting point.  It is extremely illogical and even foolish to add additional complexity unless and until it is needed to explain observations that the original, simpler hypothesis or theory cannot satisfactorily explain.

So basically you are telling us all to become Christians, so we can pull the "God did it all" line, and not have to worry about anything ever again. Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one; however, it shouldn't come into play in science since we deduct all hypotheses and theories from observed phenomena and experimental data. Your ideal for science, making it all simple, is completely childish and lazy, and if we had followed it, we would have gotten no where and still be listening to the pope.

So basically you are telling us all to become Christians, so we can pull the "God did it all" line, and not have to worry about anything ever again. Occam's razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one; however, it shouldn't come into play in science since we deduct all hypotheses and theories from observed phenomena and experimental data.

Occam's famous razor should only be applied when you have two competing theories which both explain a given phenomenon equally well.

If you have such a case then it is philosophically desirable to select the simplest theory.

I do not think that Occam's razor means that we have to abandon the scientific method.

Quote from: zork on July 14, 2009, 02:45:29 PM

Yeah, I got the point. You do have technology but instead using it you just prefer to lay down and think what may be up there.

What technology do we have that is capable of determining the structure of the celestial plane?

How I could forget, of course you don't have any technology at all to do anything. It kind of goes against all FE philosophy to do something other than lying on the beach and observing other side. Or just observing something with your eyes.

How I could forget, of course you don't have any technology at all to do anything. It kind of goes against all FE philosophy to do something other than lying on the beach and observing other side. Or just observing something with your eyes.

Please answer the question.

If light, and by extension all EM radiation, bends upwards at the surface of The Earth ...

How does RADAR work?

How can radio waves travel forwards from a radar dish, hit an incoming aircraft and return back to the dish if the radio waves are constanatly being deflected upwards?

Edit:

Quote from: zork on July 15, 2009, 03:50:51 AM

How I could forget, of course you don't have any technology at all to do anything. It kind of goes against all FE philosophy to do something other than lying on the beach and observing other side. Or just observing something with your eyes.

Please answer the question.

No. I will not bother because as I said earlier FE philosophy is just lie on the beach and observe things with your eyes and you either say that you personally don't have any or the technology I propose is impossible, faked or something similar. 

If light, and by extension all EM radiation, bends upwards at the surface of The Earth ...

How does RADAR work?

How can radio waves travel forwards from a radar dish, hit an incoming aircraft and return back to the dish if the radio waves are constanatly being deflected upwards?

Edit:

This is like asking "why doesn't the round Earth get in the way of the radio waves?" Clearly there will be a distance at which it fails to work, which is determined by the extent to which light bends, and when the aircraft is nearer to the radar dish than this critical distance it will function as expected.

No. I will not bother because as I said earlier FE philosophy is just lie on the beach and observe things with your eyes and you either say that you personally don't have any or the technology I propose is impossible, faked or something similar.

If you are not going to answer my question, then please cease debating the matter.

Quote from: zork on July 15, 2009, 05:19:20 AM

No. I will not bother because as I said earlier FE philosophy is just lie on the beach and observe things with your eyes and you either say that you personally don't have any or the technology I propose is impossible, faked or something similar.

If you are not going to answer my question, then please cease debating the matter.

Sorry, I asked first why you assume no technology available at all. And I can't propose to you the rockets which carry for example things and people to the Moon, because I know the answer from you - it's impossible.

Quote from: zork on July 15, 2009, 03:50:51 AM

How I could forget, of course you don't have any technology at all to do anything. It kind of goes against all FE philosophy to do something other than lying on the beach and observing other side. Or just observing something with your eyes.

Please answer the question.

You are creating a smokescreen by talking about "technology" but expecting an answer that is amenable to "Zetetics". Of course, the answer is that "Zetetics" will never have the technology to become a part of the 20th century, much less the 21st. You do not have the technology to develop an antibiotic, or understand a virus, or make a transistor. Direct sensory evidence is unavailable for most science and technology of the past decades, not just for the shape of the Earth.

Do you take take an antibiotic when your doctor tells you to do so, even though you will never completely know if the healing (or lack thereof) will be produced by the antibiotic? Or will you be consistent and not use antibiotics because you do not have sensory evidence of their effectiveness? Do you believe that computers are made of transistors that you cannot see, that work through forces at a distance (just like gravitation) and mechanisms stranger than science fiction (like all of quantum physics)?

This is like asking "why doesn't the round Earth get in the way of the radio waves?"

Bugger ...

:-(