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.
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.
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.htmignore 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 flatIn 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."