Bendy light?

Quote from: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 06:14:40 AM

But light doesn't bend. You've admitted so on several occasions

No I haven't.

Yep you have.

The approximation does not work for the sinking ship effect because it becomes less correct for light which is closer to horizontal. Unless you can show me an ocean whose surface is not close to horizontal, the approximation does not apply.

...

You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:

The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.


http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm

Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.

Seriously. Post some funny stuff. Like fishes nudging boats or sky mirrors. I like it when you post stuff like that.

Yep you have.

Quote from: Parsifal on September 28, 2009, 03:42:31 PM

The approximation does not work for the sinking ship effect because it becomes less correct for light which is closer to horizontal. Unless you can show me an ocean whose surface is not close to horizontal, the approximation does not apply.

I didn't say anything about light not bending in that quote.

You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:

Quote

The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.


http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm

Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.

I am not Jack, and his opinions are not mine.

I didn't say anything about light not bending in that quote.

The discussion was about bendy light. You gave a formula to describe it, then admitted it doesn't work. Therefore we understood that light could not be shown to bend as you require.

You told us that you were going to produce a new and improved formula. It never happened, you just waited a while for a few more noobs to come along so you could parade your old crap like it was new crap.

That makes me do sad face at my computer.

I am not Jack, and his opinions are not mine.

I never said they were. Read Jacks post. It applies to you.

The discussion was about bendy light. You gave a formula to describe it, then admitted it doesn't work. Therefore we understood that light could not be shown to bend as you require.

I gave an approximate equation. I made it clear from the beginning that it was only an approximation, and could not produce accurate results.

You told us that you were going to produce a new and improved formula. It never happened, you just waited a while for a few more noobs to come along so you could parade your old crap like it was new crap.

That makes me do sad face at my computer.

I should still have the calculations I made to produce my approximate equation somewhere. I was at my mother's place at the time, and I'm not sure what I did with them on my way back to Sydney.

I never said they were. Read Jacks post. It applies to you.

I have read Jack's post, thank you.

Yeah Parsy, post some more comedy. I know - put on a ruff and dance! Dance, Parsy, dance!

I gave an approximate equation. I made it clear from the beginning that it was only an approximation, and could not produce accurate results.

If it can't produce accurate results then it's no use to anyone.

The fact that (by your own admittance) it gets less and less accurate as you approach the horizon kinda bangs the nail in the coffin.

I have read Jack's post, thank you.

Now follow the instructions therein.

If it can't produce accurate results then it's no use to anyone.

The fact that (by your own admittance) it gets less and less accurate as you approach the horizon kinda bangs the nail in the coffin.

So how does that equate to saying "light does not bend"?

Now follow the instructions therein.

No.

So how does that equate to saying "light does not bend"?

Things "are" if there is evidence that they "are".

There is no evidence that light bends (in a way you require).

And so light does not bend.

Again Steve we're in KS3 area.

Things "are" if there is evidence that they "are".

There is no evidence that light bends (in a way you require).

And so light does not bend.

This is so weak, I'm not even going to bother giving it an intelligent response. When you stop committing logical fallacies I'd expect a ninth grader to be able to identify, we can discuss this maturely.

This is so weak, I'm not even going to bother giving it an intelligent response. When you stop committing logical fallacies I'd expect a ninth grader to be able to identify, we can discuss this maturely.

You win by not giving a reply.

Feel free to point out the fallacies. Or stop posting. Your choice.

Feel free to point out the fallacies.

"Things are if there is evidence that they are" does not mean that "things are not if there is no evidence that they are". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That is true, however since we are talking about a scientific debate, if there is no evidence, we have to throw it out until there is evidence for it.


Otherwise we could never move forward.

Quote from: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 08:35:50 AM

Feel free to point out the fallacies.

"Things are if there is evidence that they are" does not mean that "things are not if there is no evidence that they are". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I know! That's cool! :thumbsup:

You have given us no evidence that light bends as you require.

/thread

That is true, however since we are talking about a scientific debate, if there is no evidence, we have to throw it out until there is evidence for it.


Otherwise we could never move forward.

There is evidence for it, if we assume the Earth to be flat. And since the purpose of this website is to debate whether or not the Earth is flat, EA theory has a perfectly valid place being discussed here, within the context of FET.

I know! That's cool! :thumbsup:

So you retract your earlier statement that light does not bend.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 17, 2010, 08:45:50 AM

That is true, however since we are talking about a scientific debate, if there is no evidence, we have to throw it out until there is evidence for it.


Otherwise we could never move forward.

There is evidence for it, if we assume the Earth to be flat. And since the purpose of this website is to debate whether or not the Earth is flat, EA theory has a perfectly valid place being discussed here, within the context of FET.

Quote from: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 08:48:47 AM

I know! That's cool! :thumbsup:

So you retract your earlier statement that light does not bend.

"There is evidence for it, if we assume the Earth to be flat."

Exactly, you have to assume something for the evidence to be true. So that is no real evidence. Evaluate bendy light by itself, and it does not hold up.

Exactly, you have to assume something for the evidence to be true. So that is no real evidence. Evaluate bendy light by itself, and it does not hold up.

Not if you're looking at it as a hypothesis by itself. But as an explanation for certain observations within FET, it works very well. Then if evidence is collected for EA theory, it can be used to support FET, and other evidence for FET can be used to support the idea of bendy light.

So you retract your earlier statement that light does not bend.

Nope. There's an alarming amount of evidence that light does not bend as you require.

The only evidence you gave was quickly retracted when it was shown to be horribly inaccurate.

Bendy light doesn't work. Full stop. Hence Jack's post on the matter.

Nope. There's an alarming amount of evidence that light does not bend as you require.

That's an interesting claim, considering the difficulty you seem to be having with explaining this evidence in the other thread.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 17, 2010, 08:59:26 AM

Exactly, you have to assume something for the evidence to be true. So that is no real evidence. Evaluate bendy light by itself, and it does not hold up.

Not if you're looking at it as a hypothesis by itself. But as an explanation for certain observations within FET, it works very well. Then if evidence is collected for EA theory, it can be used to support FET, and other evidence for FET can be used to support the idea of bendy light.

Is that not circular reasoning? EA can be supported if you assume FE is true, and FE can be supported if you assume EA is true.

Quote from: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 09:04:09 AM

Nope. There's an alarming amount of evidence that light does not bend as you require.

That's an interesting claim, considering the difficulty you seem to be having with explaining this evidence in the other thread.

Not really. In the other thread you asked for an experiment. I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.

Is that not circular reasoning? EA can be supported if you assume FE is true, and FE can be supported if you assume EA is true.

No, it's not. We still require evidence for both, in the end. What I'm saying is that as FET is still a developing theory with many holes, EA seems a likely candidate to explain a lot of observations, and should not be discarded on this basis.

Not really. In the other thread you asked for an experiment. I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.

And when I asked you a simple question about it, you derailed the thread.

EA seems a likely candidate to explain a lot of observations, and should not be discarded on this basis.

It breaks just about every known law in the universe. It has been discarded on this basis.

But when you want to find out how likely RET vs. FET is, you have to throw out EA because it is dependent on it already being a FE. If the world was flat, then yes EA would be an acceptable theory (still has many holes but those can be worked out). However, you cannot assume the end result and then use that to prove something dependent on it.


Basically, you can't really assume stuff if you want it to still be a valid theory.

However, you cannot assume the end result and then use that to prove something dependent on it.

I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that it warrants further discussion and experimentation.

However you yourself said that EA and BLT require a FE. Meaning until a FE is proven, EA and BLT are NOT acceptable as evidence.

Which means this thread is moot until FE is proven NOT using BLT and EA.

I'll just chime in to mention that Bendy Light is not believed by many Flat Earthers. It seems to me to be an invented fantasy, and it violates occam's razor: there is no phenomenon which is not better or equally well explained in far simpler terms, such as by the natural perspective conventions laid down by Rowbotham (the father of modern science), and taking into account the proper distances of the heavenly bodies.

However, I am respectful of my colleagues who hold these beliefs.

However you yourself said that EA and BLT require a FE. Meaning until a FE is proven, EA and BLT are NOT acceptable as evidence.

Which means this thread is moot until FE is proven NOT using BLT and EA.

I didn't say EA requires a FE. It's perfectly conceivable that light could bend if the Earth were round, though there's really no need for it to.

If light were shown to bend as predicted by EAT, however, that would be evidence for FET because all our observations would then need to account for the bend in the light.

If you can prove EA and BLT without assuming a flat earth, then be my guest.

If you can prove EA and BLT without assuming a flat earth, then be my guest.

I can't at this point. But to my knowledge, no experiment has yet been done which attempted to, which is why it is not worth discarding yet. If we attempt to find evidence and cannot, then we can consider whether to revise the experiments or discard it.