Night and Day

Quote from: Viceroy Bummer on September 10, 2009, 07:47:36 AM

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

Read it. Learn it. Survive.

A false dilemma requires a dilemma to begin with.

I don't think you really understand what a "false dilemma" is, despite being directed to the appropriate resources.

I don't think you really understand what a "false dilemma" is, despite being directed to the appropriate resources.

From your source:

"The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."

A situation in which only two alternatives are considered is a dilemma. Therefore, in order for a false dilemma to arise, there must be a dilemma to speak of.

From your source:

"The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."

A situation in which only two alternatives are considered is a dilemma. Therefore, in order for a false dilemma to arise, there must be a dilemma to speak of.

No. You're still not getting it.

Perhaps we should take this out of the discussion area. Drop me a PM and I'll give you a hand.

As light from the Sun travels towards the Earth (except for perfectly vertical light), it bends towards the horizontal. At locations on the Earth's surface where it is sunrise or sunset, the light has bent all the way to horizontal by the time it reaches the Earth. Places which are further away from the Sun than this are not illuminated because the light bends back on itself before it can reach the Earth.

Surely, either light bends or it doesn't. How does light know when it is travelling vertically and so knows not to bend but bends when the sun is lower in the sky? Are you suggesting that the vertical light doesn't bend because it doesn't travel far enough to bend or what?

Now, you still have to account for shadows. A vertical pole will cast a shadow, the length of which is predictable based on the length of the pole and the angle of the light source - the sun. Have you observed different length shadows to back up your bendy light hypothesis?  Will I be able to do the same?

No. You're still not getting it.

What are the two alternatives being considered in this situation, and what are the other options?

Surely, either light bends or it doesn't. How does light know when it is travelling vertically and so knows not to bend but bends when the sun is lower in the sky? Are you suggesting that the vertical light doesn't bend because it doesn't travel far enough to bend or what?

Light always bends up. However, vertical light is either already travelling straight up, or it is travelling straight down and therefore is not favoured to bend in any one direction over any other - or, if you prefer, all the different possible bends cancel each other.

Now, you still have to account for shadows. A vertical pole will cast a shadow, the length of which is predictable based on the length of the pole and the angle of the light source - the sun. Have you observed different length shadows to back up your bendy light hypothesis?  Will I be able to do the same?

Shadows will be lengthened in the RE model by the curvature of the Earth, and in the FE model with EA theory by the curvature of light. Neither theory would predict a perfectly linear shadow.

What are the two alternatives being considered in this situation, and what are the other options?

You already gave us the two alternatives.

The frame of reference has nothing to do with light as observed on earth.

Light is observed to travel in straight lines.

This is presented formally in Maxwells equations.

It's all pretty simple.

You already gave us the two alternatives.

The frame of reference has nothing to do with light as observed on earth.

Light is observed to travel in straight lines.

This is presented formally in Maxwells equations.

It's all pretty simple.

Light is only observed to travel in straight lines in inertial frames of reference.

Light is only observed to travel in straight lines in inertial frames of reference.

Correct. I don't think you're advancing your argument here.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 10:18:20 AM

Light is only observed to travel in straight lines in inertial frames of reference.

Correct. I don't think you're advancing your argument here.

Okay, good. Now that we've established that:

Do you have any evidence that an inertial frame of reference for light is the same as an inertial frame of reference for mass?

The only thing that matters is the direction from which the light is coming when it reaches the observer. It doesn't matter what distance it takes for the Sun's light to bend to horizontal, an observer at any point where it is horizontal will see the Sun as if it is level with them.

Yes, that means the direction must be parallel to the ground and at almost no height, so the bending point can not be above the atmosphere.

Let me explain :


Legend :
D is the sun
A is a point exactly below the sun at ground level
F is a point 500 miles high (edge of the atmolayer) directly below the sun
H is the point where light bends towards you
B you
a (line) the ground
e (line) the refracted sun light

The drawing is at real scale (x1000 in miles).

You can see that if the bend is not in the atmosphere, there is a 2,5* angle at witch you see the sun. It will never touch the horizon before disappearing.
This scenario is the best situation. If the bending point would be higher than that, the angle would increase and the sun will disappear even sooner before it hits the horizon. If the distance between where the sun is setting (point B) and where it is the middle of the day (point A) would be smaller, again the angle would increase. I chose the longest time possible for a day (12 hours) and the place where timezones are longest (the equator at about 1000 miles/timezone) hence 12.000 miles from A to B.

There are even more serious implications than this.
Notice point I. If you were there and climbing up, you would gradually see the sun fading, because you reach the point where light is bent back. Where as in real life, when climbing you see more of the sun and the day lasts longer.
I actually calculated this. If you were 300 miles from where the sun is setting (roughly 25 minutes before sunset), and you were on a plane 8000 miles up it would be night, but on the ground it would be day. Just give a buddy of yous that's on the ground a phone call. You would have to be 8000 miles up, above the town of a buddy and the sun must have just set (for either of you, because this experiment can also be done above the point where the sun is setting). However this can be done without these hard to find circumstances, but you would have to know the speed of the plane and rate of assent.
Further, amateur rockets can reach 70 miles and often do. At this height the sun won't be visible even when on the ground it's 3 hours before sunset. We don't see that at all, on the contrary we see a lot more of the sun.

Another problem. If you are on a mountain and there are no higher peaks between you and the sunset, you can actually see the sun setting below you. Using simple tools you can determine that the angle is negative. This means the light is refracted up. How can the light be bent up towards you from a point 500 miles above you.

Also there are serious perspective problems. This light bending will have a lens effect, rendering the sun much smaller then it would be seen if the light was not bent. But more importantly because the vertical angle of refracted light is much grater than the horizontal one, it will render the sun as an ellipsis when it is not directly above.

Quote from: Viceroy Bummer on September 10, 2009, 10:24:03 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 10:18:20 AM

Light is only observed to travel in straight lines in inertial frames of reference.

Correct. I don't think you're advancing your argument here.

Okay, good. Now that we've established that:

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 05:52:34 AM

Do you have any evidence that an inertial frame of reference for light is the same as an inertial frame of reference for mass?

Now would you please establish the relevance of your question?

Light always bends up. However, vertical light is either already travelling straight up, or it is travelling straight down and therefore is not favoured to bend in any one direction over any other - or, if you prefer, all the different possible bends cancel each other.

Shadows will be lengthened in the RE model by the curvature of the Earth, and in the FE model with EA theory by the curvature of light. Neither theory would predict a perfectly linear shadow.

So what is taking you so long to work out the math?  The curvature of light is going to be the inverse of the curvature of the earth. Just like the Equivalence Priinciple and gravity/gravitation you won't be able to prove that light bends, you'll just have an alternative hypothesis.

Of course, as the RE earth model is an oblate spheroid and not a perfect sphere the mathematics of your bendy light will have to be adjusted for different locations on earth but you won't be able to prove light bends any more than you can prove the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8ms^2.

Legend :
D is the sun
A is a point exactly below the sun at ground level
F is a point 500 miles high (edge of the atmolayer) directly below the sun
H is the point where light bends towards you
B you
a (line) the ground
e (line) the refracted sun light

The drawing is at real scale (x1000 in miles).

EA theory does not involve refraction. The bend is a continuous curve.

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 10:41:19 AM

Quote from: Viceroy Bummer on September 10, 2009, 10:24:03 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 10:18:20 AM

Light is only observed to travel in straight lines in inertial frames of reference.

Correct. I don't think you're advancing your argument here.

Okay, good. Now that we've established that:

Quote from: Robosteve on September 10, 2009, 05:52:34 AM

Do you have any evidence that an inertial frame of reference for light is the same as an inertial frame of reference for mass?

Now would you please establish the relevance of your question?

If an inertial frame of reference for light does not correspond to one for mass, light would be observed to bend in a mass-oriented inertial frame of reference.

The curvature of light is going to be the inverse of the curvature of the earth.

Not necessarily. It just needs to approximate it over short distances.

EA theory does not involve refraction. The bend is a continuous curve.

All you did to refute the problems is bring an argument from fallacy.
The fact that light is being bent (or curved), does not address all the problems and also brings new ones.

Indeed the angle would be smaller, however if the light is not bent in the atmosphere we would never see the sun hit the horizon.

The fact that going up will result in seeing less of the sun is indeed solved. (however with the problems implied below).

The sun being lower seen from a mountain, would indeed happen. But still, only if the light is bent in the atmosphere, and would bring a serious problem. The man on the mountain would see the light that is bent up, but because the earth is flat, any light going up would be seen as coming from the earth, so you would see the sun in front of the earth instead of going behind the horizon.

Perspective problems remain, although i did not calculate the actual skew, I presume it should be visible.

I did not find any reference to where this presumed dark energy exists. In order for EA theory to work, it should be greater at ground level because here is where the light needs to bend in order to get the horizon illusion. If most of the bending takes place before the light hits the atmolayer, the sun going over the horizon is simply not possible.

Quote from: senoctar on September 09, 2009, 10:55:48 PM

If it is a sphere (or even a focused spotlight), it should be visible from anywhere on the earth.
If the sun can only be above, where is it when it is night.
Is this attributed to the bending light phenomena ?

Yes.

Quote from: SSSavio on September 10, 2009, 01:39:22 AM

If the sun is a spotlight, and stars does not exist, how can we see in the sky celestial bodies that shine?

Who said that stars do not exist?

Quote from: Squat on September 10, 2009, 02:15:25 AM

If the sun 'acts like a spotlight' then what mechanism directs the sunlight? Surely this mechanism would be visible especially at sunrise and sunset when the 'spotlight effect' would be 'turning off' (for want of a better phrase). But the sun always appears round - indicating that it can't be a disc and there is no evidence of any shrouding that would create a spotlight effect.

The whole idea of the sun 'acting like a spotlight' may give an answer for a flat earth believer but it doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny. In the absence of any observable phenomena that can prove the 'spotlight' effect one has to conclude that it is just a poorly thought out idea to try and justify a faith based hypothesis.

The spotlight form of the Sun's illumination upon the Earth is, in my opinion, caused by the curvature of light rays. As light from the Sun travels towards the Earth (except for perfectly vertical light), it bends towards the horizontal. At locations on the Earth's surface where it is sunrise or sunset, the light has bent all the way to horizontal by the time it reaches the Earth. Places which are further away from the Sun than this are not illuminated because the light bends back on itself before it can reach the Earth.

If the light bends back on itself as you say, wouldn't a person in an airplane see the sun apparently shining from a point on the ground as they flew over the area where sunset/sunrise is not quite visible from ground level?

If the light bends back on itself as you say, wouldn't a person in an airplane see the sun apparently shining from a point on the ground as they flew over the area where sunset/sunrise is not quite visible from ground level?

No... why would he?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 15, 2009, 03:10:22 PM

If the light bends back on itself as you say, wouldn't a person in an airplane see the sun apparently shining from a point on the ground as they flew over the area where sunset/sunrise is not quite visible from ground level?

No... why would he?

Because, light on the ground is coming from the ground towards the plane (from houses, streetlights etc.) but Parsifal says the beams of light from the sun are bending back on themselves, hence being invisible from ground level. If one went up high enough to be in the path of one of these beams bending upwards, you'd see sunlight appearing to come from the same direction as lights on the ground. As if the sun was sitting on the ground!

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 15, 2009, 03:34:08 PM

Quote from: W on September 15, 2009, 03:29:36 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 15, 2009, 03:10:22 PM

If the light bends back on itself as you say, wouldn't a person in an airplane see the sun apparently shining from a point on the ground as they flew over the area where sunset/sunrise is not quite visible from ground level?

No... why would he?

Because, light on the ground is coming from the ground towards the plane (from houses, streetlights etc.) but Parsifal says the beams of light from the sun are bending back on themselves, hence being invisible from ground level. If one went up high enough to be in the path of one of these beams bending upwards, you'd see sunlight appearing to come from the same direction as lights on the ground. As if the sun was sitting on the ground!

Air is not transparent.

How is that helpful to this discussion? And if its not transparent how come I can see through it?

How is that helpful to this discussion? And if its not transparent how come I can see through it?

Because there isn't much of it. If you try to look at far distances you will be unable to see through it.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on September 15, 2009, 03:39:55 PM

How is that helpful to this discussion? And if its not transparent how come I can see through it?

Because there isn't much of it. If you try to look at far distances you will be unable to see through it.

I'm still not quite getting how this will stop pilots seeing what looks like the sun shining out of the ground.

I'm still not quite getting how this will stop pilots seeing what looks like the sun shining out of the ground.

I read your explanation above but I'm still not sure why one would, and if one would, would not the same thing occur in RET?

I read your explanation above but I'm still not sure why one would, and if one would, would not the same thing occur in RET?

When you look at a mirror, an object would seem as it is on the mirror (actually in the mirror, or behind, because we can easily judge small distances). The direction of the light is all that matters when we judge it's position. The sun's light is not bent by the earth, but it's bent, so it would be a similar effect as having a giant mirror on the earth. So we would see the sun over (or in) the earth.

Thank you for the diagram Senoctar, that is exactly what I meant.

Light reflected from the ground is also bending, so the ground would appear to curve away from the observer, to below the apparent position of the Sun.

Light reflected from the ground is also bending, so the ground would appear to curve away from the observer, to below the apparent position of the Sun.

Light from the ground is travelling far less distance than light from the Sun, therefore has less curvature before reaching the observer, therefore appears closer to its actual position. So no, the Sun superimposition effect would still happen.

Light from the ground is travelling far less distance than light from the Sun, therefore has less curvature before reaching the observer, therefore appears closer to its actual position. So no, the Sun superimposition effect would still happen.

A light ray reaching an observer from a particular angle has travelled along the same path as any other from that angle, regardless of how long it has been travelling for. If the path of the light from the Sun coincides with that of the light from the ground, then the sunlight will meet the ground at some point and be absorbed, and no light from the Sun will reach the observer. In this situation, the only way the Sun can appear below the ground is if the ground is transparent to allow the light to pass through.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 16, 2009, 06:45:27 PM

Light from the ground is travelling far less distance than light from the Sun, therefore has less curvature before reaching the observer, therefore appears closer to its actual position. So no, the Sun superimposition effect would still happen.

A light ray reaching an observer from a particular angle has travelled along the same path as any other from that angle, regardless of how long it has been travelling for. If the path of the light from the Sun coincides with that of the light from the ground, then the sunlight will meet the ground at some point and be absorbed, and no light from the Sun will reach the observer. In this situation, the only way the Sun can appear below the ground is if the ground is transparent to allow the light to pass through.

In your sunset scenario, the light from the sun has travelled along a path close to horizontal before its upward bend raised it enough for it not to be visible from the ground. But it never reached the low altitude of the point the light rays from the ground are coming from. Therefore the ground won't interfere with it as it is "behind" the light from the sun. If anything, this would make the image of the superimposed sun look a little transparent as ground light would be visible through it . The sunlight will never meet the ground and be absorbed, as the whole point of the flat sunset argument is that it's sunlight that fails to meet the ground. If you think I am missing something or misunderstanding, please supply a diagram to clarify. The diagram must be to scale and must depict that ground and sun light have the same amount of curvature.

If you think I am missing something or misunderstanding, please supply a diagram to clarify. The diagram must be to scale and must depict that ground and sun light have the same amount of curvature.

Good luck with that.  I've been trying to get scale diagrams out of some of these people for over a year with no luck at all.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 17, 2009, 02:19:46 AM

If you think I am missing something or misunderstanding, please supply a diagram to clarify. The diagram must be to scale and must depict that ground and sun light have the same amount of curvature.

Good luck with that.  I've been trying to get scale diagrams out of some of these people for over a year with no luck at all.

Until they provide one, then my assertion stands as truth. I have clearly explained my side of it and so if they wish to dispute my claims they must provide an understandable counterargument. Given that the troll's babble directly conflicts with the mechanism for sunsets suggested earlier in this thread, a diagram would be the most helpful way forward.

Quote from: markjo on October 17, 2009, 08:25:28 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on October 17, 2009, 02:19:46 AM

If you think I am missing something or misunderstanding, please supply a diagram to clarify. The diagram must be to scale and must depict that ground and sun light have the same amount of curvature.

Good luck with that.  I've been trying to get scale diagrams out of some of these people for over a year with no luck at all.

Until they provide one, then my assertion stands as truth. I have clearly explained my side of it and so if they wish to dispute my claims they must provide an understandable counterargument. Given that the troll's babble directly conflicts with the mechanism for sunsets suggested earlier in this thread, a diagram would be the most helpful way forward.

Which is exactly why you will never see one.