Approximate formula for EA theory (NOT complete documentation yet)

Quote from: JUNKER on July 19, 2009, 06:56:38 PM

FYI, there will be at least a two week delay in any further updates to the EA theory due to the author being temporarily banned. 

Yes, it's a terrible shame he had to go and get himself banned while working on this theory.  It would be nice if he was serious more and trolled less, huh?

Sure I guess.  He just requested that I notify everyone and that is what I did.

EA theory only covers the bending of light in a single plane which is perpendicular to an equipotential line in the Dark Energy field; in other words, up/down bending of light. Three-dimensional bending may be required to explain astronomical observations, but that is beyond the scope of this hypothesis.

In other words, a few things are out of the scope of this hypothesis:
- Terrestrial measurements.
- Celestial objects anywhere near the zenith
- Every characteristic of the light from celestial objects apart from the altitude (angle from the horizon), including brightness, red shift, distortions, horizontal shift of the light.
- Anything close to a complete prediction, something like "take these formulas and predict the altitude of the Sun for an observer standing on the Equator, in March 21, 2009, at 3:00 p.m."
- Any experiment that might be used to validate the formula against real data.
- Any diagram.

This is really a guess, not a hypothesis.

This is really a guess, not a hypothesis.

I reckon that you could call any old, half-decent guess an "hypothesis" ...

But it is probably a long way off being a "theory" which is an hypothesis which has been backed up by a decent bit of supporting experimentation.

It is another step in the direction of a FETOE.

A Flat Earth Theory Of Everyting?

Wouldn't you need a Flat Earth Grand Unified Theory first?

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

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 19, 2009, 02:56:13 PM

It is another step in the direction of a FETOE.

A Flat Earth Theory Of Everyting?

Wouldn't you need a Flat Earth Grand Unified Theory first?

We should start with a FEHOSV. A Flat Earth Hypothesis of Something Verifiable. Then after some enormous number of steps we will get to a FEGSUT. A Flat Earth Grand Somewhat Unified Theory. Maybe then you will be ready to start the search for a FETOE.

 Kind of nitpicking a little. Why there is c on equation? As in Euclid's hypothesis there are some kind of unknown substances between the earth and the sun. And are there going to be different equation for light which you can shine parallel with earth and you can get so called bending in just one kilometer?

Why there is c on equation?

Because, if light were to travel more slowly, applying the same acceleration to it would result in a sharper curve. By the same token, faster light would result in a shallower curve.

And are there going to be different equation for light which you can shine parallel with earth and you can get so called bending in just one kilometer?

Yes, eventually. However, I am now back to full-time study so I will have limited time to work on the theory.

Interesting, looks like some of my notebook work.  Can't wait to see where it goes.

I am still confused about how EA
has anything to do with FE vs RE

If you are trying to show that DE has a force on light,
then too late, its all ready been shown
how? b/c
light =energy=matter
and matter is effected by DE.

and yes, this might be a bit of a straw man,
but if DE could effect light, then why would
it be pulling it down to make a horizon illusion?
wouldn't it push it upwards, making the earth appear
concave? furthermore if you did create a formula for
DE effect on light, you would have to apply it the same way
to the earth and people.

I am still confused about how EA
has anything to do with FE vs RE

If you are trying to show that DE has a force on light,
then too late, its all ready been shown
how? b/c
light =energy=matter
and matter is effected by DE.

and yes, this might be a bit of a straw man,
but if DE could effect light, then why would
it be pulling it down to make a horizon illusion?
wouldn't it push it upwards, making the earth appear
concave? furthermore if you did create a formula for
DE effect on light, you would have to apply it the same way
to the earth and people.

Uh, light does bend up according to EA theory.

and being prepared for this claim I said
"wouldn't it push it upwards, making the earth appear
concave"?

think about it, if light was bent upwards, things such as light houses
and mountains off in the distance would appear to be higher up,
and the farther they were away, the more bending allowed, and
thus the earth would look concave.

but you should be trying to show that things appear lower down,
causing the horizon effect. i.e. light from far off mountains and the sky
bend down to make it seem as if the earth was convex.

ok so I read your first post on EA.
now how does a force work on energy (aka light)
and not mass, if the two are equivalent.

and even if it were to accelerate only light,
why doesn't light from man made sources
experience the same effect?

and if you say that its because of the elevation of the EA,
how come star light is not bend back?

in short stop using post-hoc reasoning because it leads to inconsistancy

and being prepared for this claim I said
"wouldn't it push it upwards, making the earth appear
concave"?

think about it, if light was bent upwards, things such as light houses
and mountains off in the distance would appear to be higher up,
and the farther they were away, the more bending allowed, and
thus the earth would look concave.

but you should be trying to show that things appear lower down,
causing the horizon effect. i.e. light from far off mountains and the sky
bend down to make it seem as if the earth was convex.

I have thought about it, and it works. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that light bending upwards would cause objects to appear higher up.

ok so I read your first post on EA.
now how does a force work on energy (aka light)
and not mass, if the two are equivalent.

That's like asking how a force such as electromagnetism works on an electron but not a neutrino. Admittedly, the nature of the force is unknown, but it would need to apply to electromagnetic radiation only.

and even if it were to accelerate only light,
why doesn't light from man made sources
experience the same effect?

It does.

and if you say that its because of the elevation of the EA,
how come star light is not bend back?

It does.

in short stop using post-hoc reasoning because it leads to inconsistancy

In short, stop criticising ideas when you have no understanding of how they work.

In short, stop criticising ideas when you have no understanding of how they work.

Ok point taken, I don't know how you formulate what you write down, and whether you have thought of it before,
and therefore can't make a claim of post-hoc reasoning.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 26, 2009, 10:07:27 AM

and even if it were to accelerate only light,
why doesn't light from man made sources
experience the same effect?

It does.

so this EA has the power to bend the path of light back to the heavens,
so if I put on a flashlight, why doesn't it suddenly make the same jump.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 26, 2009, 09:50:42 AM

and being prepared for this claim I said
"wouldn't it push it upwards, making the earth appear
concave"?

think about it, if light was bent upwards, things such as light houses
and mountains off in the distance would appear to be higher up,
and the farther they were away, the more bending allowed, and
thus the earth would look concave.

but you should be trying to show that things appear lower down,
causing the horizon effect. i.e. light from far off mountains and the sky
bend down to make it seem as if the earth was convex.

I have thought about it, and it works. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me that light bending upwards would cause objects to appear higher up.

I am not trying to insult your intelligence,
I know its a little long winded, but please read my reasoning:

this is what the horizon effect looks like:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question65.htm
ignore text, just look at diagram.

The key point is, you can only see the peeks of far off things.
in the RE model that I am presenting, the earth is curved and the light is straight.

If I understand correctly, you attribute the horizon cutoff to
the light bending and the earth being flat

In the example of the ship at sea in a flat earth,
for the bottom parts of the ship to appear below the sea,
would you not agree that the light would have to bend downwards as it approaches the viewer?
so I establish that bending light downwards makes things look lower.
would it not follow that the opposite would be true?

for example, I stand on flat earth, and I look at a huge tower a kilometer.
lets say the light is bent upwards in such a fashion that
it gains 100 meters per kilometer traveled.
this means that the window at 100m appears to be at 200m.
the very base of the tower appears to be standing at 100m.
therefore, I can say that if light is bent upwards,
objects should look higher up.

but on our earth flat or round, we know that objects appear to be lower down.

QED if the world is flat and objects appear lower than they are (aka horizon effect)
then the light is bent/accelerated downwards. (note as VoR theorem 1)

taking the contrapositive of VoR 1,
you get VoR corollary 1:

If light is bent upwards, then either the world is not flat, or objects don't appear lower.

considering that objects do appear lower in our world,

VoR corollary 1 produces VoR theorem 2:

If light is bent upwards, then the world is not flat.

contrapositive of VoR theorem 2 yeilds corollary 2:

If the world is flat, light must not bend upwards.

therefore EA theory is not correct because you said,
"light does bend up according to EA theory."

so this EA has the power to bend the path of light back to the heavens,
so if I put on a flashlight, why doesn't it suddenly make the same jump.

It does, over the course of a few hundred kilometres.

[ .... reasoning as to why light does not bend up ... ]

Light bending up does not cause things to appear higher. This seems to be a common misconception among new members. I can draw you a diagram if it would help you to understand the effect better.

please do 
and could you tell me how to put jpegs on here?

I have explained why it does.
I admit my reasoning is all I know
about the subject, so I will
have to get an expert on physics

as to why

Light bending up does not cause things to appear higher. This seems to be a common misconception among new members. I can draw you a diagram if it would help you to understand the effect better.

this is wrong.

please do 
and could you tell me how to put jpegs on here?

Using the BBcode image tags, like this:

[img]http://www.website.com/image.jpg[/img]
If you need somewhere to upload images to, try http://www.tinypic.com/.

Anyway, here is your diagram:



The blue dot is an observer and the red dot is an object being observed. The curved black line is a light ray travelling from the red dot to the blue one; the dotted line and the blurred red dot indicate where the red dot would appear to be to the observer. Note that its apparent position is lower than its actual one.

last time I checked, that means the light is bending down

last time I checked, that means the light is bending down

It starts out moving downwards, and ends up moving less sharply downwards. That is an upward bend.

I could draw the curve with opposite acceleration,
and show that it appears higher.

your drawing is not convincing

I could draw the curve with opposite acceleration,
and show that it appears higher.

I'm not sure what you mean by "opposite acceleration", but please do.

ok ok,
I see that you point is valid.
If EA accelerates light, then it could give the
horizon effect.

one more problem.

your perspective stuff works because a curved surface is in the same topology set as a flat one.

however what happens when light is pointed perpendicularly towards the earth?
because in our RE, it would speed up.

however what happens when light is pointed perpendicularly towards the earth?
because in our RE, it would speed up.

Light doesn't speed up in any model. The speed of light (in vacuum) is a universal constant, in accordance with Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on September 26, 2009, 07:41:26 PM

however what happens when light is pointed perpendicularly towards the earth?
because in our RE, it would speed up.

Light doesn't speed up in any model. The speed of light (in vacuum) is a universal constant, in accordance with Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.

Would this result in red, blue shift then? If the light "accelerating" towards Earth results in blue shift, the how do you account for red shift of stars.

Would this result in red, blue shift then? If the light "accelerating" towards Earth results in blue shift, the how do you account for red shift of stars.

The matter in the stars has fundamentally different properties from that on Earth, causing the line spectra to appear shifted.