A crude diagram of new bendy light model

You are right, 3 Tesla: it keeps getting harder by the minute.

No single Flat Earth (mis)representation will be able to explain correctly all observed phenomena.

The problem is that you're assuming blindly that a lot of your your RE phenomena happens in the first place.

Quote

No single Flat Earth (mis)representation will be able to explain correctly all observed phenomena.

The problem is that you're assuming blindly that a lot of your your RE phenomena happens in the first place.

Tom's arrived - this thread is now officially going to die a slow and painful death through suffocation ...

Edit - please see Tom's stubborn and ignorant "contributions" to the following recent threads:

Ham Radio and Moonbounce
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0
08/06/2009+

Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30251.0
04/07/2009+

Quote

No single Flat Earth (mis)representation will be able to explain correctly all observed phenomena.

The problem is that you're assuming blindly that a lot of your your RE phenomena happens in the first place.

A reply with more "content" would be:

There is an awful lot of evidence out there that The South Geographical Pole (90 degrees south) is a unique, single point in space rather than a circle or tropic.

Please see the logs of Scott and Amundsen (1912), the logs of Ranolph Fiennes, et al. (1979-1982) and a host of data from the Scott-Amundsen South Polar Station.

Edit - see also the logs of Fuchs, et al. who walked across the whole continent 1955-1958:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Fiennes is a truly Great Britain - the first man to walk to both poles *and* climb Mt. Everest:

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

Quote

No single Flat Earth (mis)representation will be able to explain correctly all observed phenomena.

The problem is that you're assuming blindly that a lot of your your RE phenomena happens in the first place.

1.  What phenomena ?
2.  Where has it been assumed?

1.  What phenomena ?

For example (all well-documented):

1. The existence of a South Geographical Pole

2. 24-hour sunlight during summer at The South Geographical Pole

3. Sunrise on the equator being due east / west on the equinox

4. Star-trails forming a perfect sphere as observed from all points on The Earth

5. The South Celstial Pole being due south for all observers in The Southern Hemisphere

(Please feel free to add some more.)

Edit: 2-5 work OK with the "Ice Wall" map (above right), but 1 only works with the Antarctic continent map (above left).

Another objection to bendy light: why aren't shapes (e.g. circular Sun) distorted?

1) All i said that we should give the time for that theory do develop - as i said, for now, there is almost nothing done in this theory
2) I think that bendy light theory can be excluded on basics of pure math. More phenomenas bendy light have to explain - more equations it's bending must satisfy. When we will thing about sunrises/sunsets + west/east equinox sunrises/sunsets + fullfilling it all in whatever time zone sun goes through + keeping sun circular + keeping other objects in the sky not distorted with changes of time + et cetera - combining all these equations together resulting in false might be proven even not finding most of these equations, using degrees of freedom. I hope that FE'ers don't deny math?
3) That bendy light would result in everything looked distorted as fuck, and as we aren't observing that ( unless we will use some ergoline derivative ) we can say that EA trying to explain all phenomenas is worth exactly nothing.

Quote from: Moon squirter on July 17, 2009, 07:28:45 AM

1.  What phenomena ?

For example (all well-documented):

1. The existence of a South Geographical Pole

2. 24-hour sunlight during summer at The South Geographical Pole

3. Sunrise on the equator being due east / west on the equinox

4. Star-trails forming a perfect sphere as observed from all points on The Earth

5. The South Celstial Pole being due south for all observers in The Southern Hemisphere

(Please feel free to add some more.)

Edit: 2-5 work OK with the "Ice Wall" map (above right), but 1 only works with the Antarctic continent map (above left).

6.  Almost exactly 12 hours of daylight every day at or near the equator.

7.  Almost exactly 12 hours of daylight almost everywhere on the earth on the day of the equinox.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 15, 2009, 12:49:46 PM

Whilst there is no real South "Pole", there will be a "Southern Circle/Tropic" on which you would always measure your position as 90 degrees south (by star or Sun) so that could be where Scott and Amundsen went (etc.).

A slight problem with this is that Scott and Amundsen set out from different points on the Antarctic coastline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TerraNova2.png

So if they both headed off due south towards a point on your "Southern Circle/Tropic" they would have arrived at widely different locations.

But we know that Scott arrived at exactly the same point as Amundsen because he (disheateningly) discovered a Norwegian flag waiting for him.

This evidence would suggest that The South Geographical Pole is a real, unique point and not a "Southern Circle/Tropic" that your model predicts.

There is an awful lot of evidence out there that The South Geographical Pole (90 degrees south) is a unique, single point in space rather than a circle or tropic.

Please see the logs of Scott and Amundsen (1912), the logs of Ranolph Fiennes, et al. (1979-1982) and a host of data from the Scott-Amundsen South Polar Station.

Edit - see also the logs of Fuchs, et al. who walked across the whole continent 1955-1958:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Would the OP like to comment about this issue (the South Pole apparently being a point, not a circle)?

The vast quantity of data from The South Pole - a single, unique point in space which has been visited many times by many people of many nationalities for nearly a hundred years now - cannot be explained by any Flat Earth Model ...

Therefore The Earth is round, not flat.

So long, and thanks for all the fish good debating!

I don't know, I am beginning to lean toward the bipolar model of FET.  I am sure a bendy light model could accomodate it.  Of course, only more evidence could make a distinction between the models.  I am just proposing my model so future FE'ers have some new ideas to work with in light of experimental evidence to come.

As for you 3 Tesla, you are quite the entertainer.  You need to post in the non-serious forums more.

In your very cool diagram of the new theory for bendy light, you have to explain three things, imho.

• First: why the sun emitt light rays only from its north "pole" and its "south" pole, but not in between?
  
• Second: why the rays that came up from the upper part of the sun take a completely different trajectory from the ones coming from south? Why they curves towards the earth? What principle guides all the light towards the earth and not towards every other point in space?
• Three: according to your model, the north pole of the flat earth has to be more hot than the equator. How can you explain this?
  

I make all theese observations assuming that the blue sphere in the centre is the sun, but I really dunno why the sun is painted blue in the image...

I make all theese observations assuming that the blue sphere in the centre is the sun, but I really dunno why the sun is painted blue in the image...

Maybe because it's not the sun...

Quote from: SSSavio on July 28, 2009, 07:00:08 AM

I make all theese observations assuming that the blue sphere in the centre is the sun, but I really dunno why the sun is painted blue in the image...

Maybe because it's not the sun...

Ok I'm sorry if I misunderstand the picture. If It's not the sun, why it has light rays coming out from the north and the south face. Can you explain me better the picture?

Quote from: Euclid on July 28, 2009, 10:00:22 AM

Quote from: SSSavio on July 28, 2009, 07:00:08 AM

I make all theese observations assuming that the blue sphere in the centre is the sun, but I really dunno why the sun is painted blue in the image...

Maybe because it's not the sun...

Ok I'm sorry if I misunderstand the picture. If It's not the sun, why it has light rays coming out from the north and the south face. Can you explain me better the picture?

Did you read the description?

I would like to thank Euclid for his helpful diagram. The contributor Euclid seems to have one thing in common with the original mathematician; not having a clue about the scientific developments of the last 2000 years. The original Euclid can draw on the defence that he has been dead for some considerable time; the contributor must just be very, very stupid.

Just looking at the first diagram, as drawn, it wouldn't work. Assuming that you're having the light curve through refraction (which is what was stated) when it left the cloud of dark matter/energy or whatever (that the index of refraction is not known for) then it could continue in a straight line.

With EA and bending of light, it'd bend UP, away from the FE.

Also, with the sun drawn as a sphere, and light rays drawn as shown, the whole earth would be lit.

It also suffers from the problem that the positions of stars relative to each other would be distorted when seen from different altitudes. This does not happen.

Just looking at the first diagram, as drawn, it wouldn't work. Assuming that you're having the light curve through refraction (which is what was stated) when it left the cloud of dark matter/energy or whatever (that the index of refraction is not known for) then it could continue in a straight line.

With EA and bending of light, it'd bend UP, away from the FE.

Also, with the sun drawn as a sphere, and light rays drawn as shown, the whole earth would be lit.

You are misunderstanding the diagram.  The central sphere is not the sun.

It also suffers from the problem that the positions of stars relative to each other would be distorted when seen from different altitudes. This does not happen.

Possibly.  A more rigorous theory would need to be developed to determine this.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 22, 2009, 05:00:16 PM

It also suffers from the problem that the positions of stars relative to each other would be distorted when seen from different altitudes. This does not happen.

Possibly.  A more rigorous theory would need to be developed to determine this.

A completely different theory, you mean. Yours fails the test of matching theory to observation and must therefore be removed from the playing field. Next.

Quote from: Euclid on September 23, 2009, 03:33:13 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 22, 2009, 05:00:16 PM

It also suffers from the problem that the positions of stars relative to each other would be distorted when seen from different altitudes. This does not happen.

Possibly.  A more rigorous theory would need to be developed to determine this.

A completely different theory, you mean. Yours fails the test of matching theory to observation and must therefore be removed from the playing field. Next.

This is not yet a rigorous theory capable of being tested.

If EA and bendy light are the forefront of FET, I feel sorry for FET.

And what's the curvature of the bendy light? Somewhere around the curvature of RE, I'm sure it'd be.

And there's a few problems with bendy light that have been posted before and haven't had an answer.

If EA and bendy light are the forefront of FET, I feel sorry for FET.

And what's the curvature of the bendy light? Somewhere around the curvature of RE, I'm sure it'd be.

And there's a few problems with bendy light that have been posted before and haven't had an answer.

Bendy light has always been distasteful to me, although the fact that it does neatly explain some problems with 'classical' FET cannot be ignored.  I would compare the development of the bendy light theory to the development of cosmic inflation theory in RET - it solves some problems and introduces others, but the fact that it is a single solution to several unsolved problems cannot be ignored.

Whatever solution is ultimately arrived at must agree with observations - as Euclid said, this is a new theory that is still under construction, but thanks to the collaborative and constructive nature of this site he feels he can post it here for us all to scratch our heads over and iron out the creases. Personally, I applaud his efforts.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it to work, but right now it's not working.

Just like inflation

This is not yet a rigorous theory capable of being tested.

We need one that can be tested.

Also some predictive power would be good too.

Just like inflation

If you're going to wink, take off one of the hats.

It's just creepy otherwise.

Quote from: Matrix on September 24, 2009, 12:11:39 PM

Just like inflation

If you're going to wink, take off one of the hats.

It's just creepy otherwise.

It's my party and I'll wink if I want to.  Try saying that after a few drinks at a stranger's house party without getting arrested.