'Bendy Light' Discussion

  • 355 Replies
  • 45048 Views
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2010, 09:17:08 AM »
Given that A2=B2 + C2 what is A?

I don't know the value of B or C, so I cannot answer that.

Bingo. You're a fast learner.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2010, 09:23:48 AM »
Bingo. You're a fast learner.

You're the one who's supposed to be providing evidence here. If you can't even find one case where the experiment was performed properly with experimental uncertainty recorded, I'm afraid your evidence is fairly weak. It seems to me like you're just assuming that it would work because that website says so.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2010, 10:44:55 AM »
Parsy, take radar as an example. It's merely EMR of a longer wavelength. If it didn't travel in a straight line it wouldn't work. And it does work, as results from radar readings for air traffic controllers for altitude and position agree with those of the plane's onboard instruments.
Laser beams - get a hat with a laser pointer on it. Look towards the horizon and you'll see the beam stretching out straight. Look upwards and the beam looks exactly the same.
Still on lasers, the laser ranging experiment to reflect a beam off the moon would certainly not work if the beam curved, as the beam has to hit the target straight on to reflect back. This would mean the original beam would have to point away from the moon to achieve this.
Every possible use of light in technology assumes straightness of path, and this assumption has never ever produced an anomalous result.
The level of experimental error in any of these is neither here nor there, and you know it, you're just trying to slow down the discussion.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2010, 10:50:59 AM »
Parsy, take radar as an example. It's merely EMR of a longer wavelength. If it didn't travel in a straight line it wouldn't work. And it does work, as results from radar readings for air traffic controllers for altitude and position agree with those of the plane's onboard instruments.

That's because RET is assumed in these calculations. If the Earth was flat and light did not bend, then radar would be erroneous because the Earth's surface would be closer to an aircraft than expected.

Laser beams - get a hat with a laser pointer on it. Look towards the horizon and you'll see the beam stretching out straight. Look upwards and the beam looks exactly the same.

As would be expected if the light curved, because it also curves on its way back, so the net effect is an apparent straight line.

Still on lasers, the laser ranging experiment to reflect a beam off the moon would certainly not work if the beam curved, as the beam has to hit the target straight on to reflect back. This would mean the original beam would have to point away from the moon to achieve this.

And it would, because light coming from the moon (which is the only thing telling us where the moon is) would have curved on its way down.

Every possible use of light in technology assumes straightness of path, and this assumption has never ever produced an anomalous result.

That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.

The level of experimental error in any of these is neither here nor there, and you know it, you're just trying to slow down the discussion.

I'd be interested to get at least an estimate for the uncertainty involved in one experiment which provides support for straight light.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2010, 10:54:01 AM »
So you are saying it is a RE? Because radar works and you say it would only work with an RE?

Also are you saying that a straight laser fired at the moon would still hit it if it bended? And when it comes back, it bends the reverse way and not up again?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2010, 10:55:42 AM »
So you are saying it is a RE? Because radar works and you say it would only work with an RE?

No, I am saying that straight light on a Flat Earth would not work. Bendy light would.

Also are you saying that a straight laser fired at the moon would still hit it if it bended? And when it comes back, it bends the reverse way and not up again?

I don't know how to answer this, mostly because you're asking about a straight laser which bends.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2010, 12:26:35 PM »
What makes the light bend? I heard the phrase electromagnetic acceleration banded around accept that light cannot be moved electromagnetically. It has to be absorbed and re-emitted by a charged particle. I guess if the Earth had a huge mass then it might get bent in the gravitational field. Though a field like that might give itself away.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2010, 12:30:36 PM »
That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.

With that logic, how can you qualify your disbelief in anything?
How do we know it isn't really undetectable goblins that have light tethered and drag it down or up to people?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2010, 02:21:09 PM »
You're the one who's supposed to be providing evidence here. If you can't even find one case where the experiment was performed properly with experimental uncertainty recorded, I'm afraid your evidence is fairly weak. It seems to me like you're just assuming that it would work because that website says so.

Umm sorry. You asked for an experiment that proves light travels in straight lines. I gave you one. It's for little kiddies so you should be able to do it. (It's also repeatable and falsifiable)

Why do you baaaawww so much when people give you what you ask for?

That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.

Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2010, 04:15:06 PM »
Parsifal you are wrong about many things, but the one I shall needle you about is the simplest example, the "looking at a laser" one.
If the light can ONLY bend upwards (which is what you state) then what you'd see when looking at a beam bright enough to visible as it passes through the atmosphere is a beam bending upwards. What has failed to register in your smug little brain cell is that when you can see the path of the beam itself, you're not looking directly at the same beam bouncing back. You're looking at particles in the atmosphere illuminated by the beam, which are scattering the light in all manner of random directions, hence the visibility of the beam from different positions. It's like seeing the path of a plane by looking at the vapour trail. Therefore, bending of the beam WOULD be visible.
As for radar - you're just so wrong it's funny.
You're also forgetting your magic bending affects light moving horizontally more than it affects light coming in vertically, which would lead to a difference in angular separation between star positions as they moved across the sky. This never happens, and indeed can be proved never to happen by anyone who has an amateur telescope fitted with either a computer locating system or simple setting circles.

I can crush your other rebuttals but I simply can't be bothered. Now scram.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2010, 05:31:20 PM »
You're the one who's supposed to be providing evidence here. If you can't even find one case where the experiment was performed properly with experimental uncertainty recorded, I'm afraid your evidence is fairly weak. It seems to me like you're just assuming that it would work because that website says so.

Umm sorry. You asked for an experiment that proves light travels in straight lines. I gave you one. It's for little kiddies so you should be able to do it. (It's also repeatable and falsifiable)

Why do you baaaawww so much when people give you what you ask for?

That doesn't mean that light does not bend, only that we have not yet found evidence that it does.

Strangely, no one believes pink unicorns exist, despite my telling them that we've just not found the evidence yet.

In this case Parsifal is totally correct. The experiment you linked to has a level of accuracy, like anything. An example would be measuring if your house is straight. If you take ruler and hold it against the house, and it appears that the surface of the house is flush where you measured, you could use this as evidence to indicate that the side of the house is straight. Of course, you have to assume that the ruler is straight, and this is once source of experimental error (which can be qualified by the most accurate measurement you can take of the straightness of the ruler). Also, you measured the straightness of the side of the house over a relatively short distance, so there is a quantifiable statistical error in the measurement. Clearly in this case, using the ruler to measure the straightness of the house fails to prove anything.

In the same way, bendy light proposes a curvature of light on the order of (not exactly equivalent to) the curvature of the Earth. The accuracy of measurement you need to demonstrate or rule out this amount of curvature over a distance of several meters is enormous. According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2010, 06:18:41 PM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2010, 07:45:25 PM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
what?

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2010, 09:19:56 PM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2010, 10:49:02 AM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
what?

For goodness sake man, learn to read other people's posts thoroughly.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2010, 10:50:28 AM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
what?

For goodness sake man, learn to read other people's posts thoroughly.
I'm afraid I went through it several times, but could not understand your meaningless blabber.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2010, 10:59:38 AM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about triangulating a star position from different points on the earth. I'm talking about observing a pair of stars from one point on the earth but at different times.
For example: say Star A and Star B have an angular separation of 70 degrees. Their angular separation is always 70 degrees, regardless of their positions relative to the horizon. If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky. This would mean the relative positions of A and B to each other would vary in angular separation as the stars moved across the sky. It is extremely easy to prove this does not happen.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2010, 11:00:24 AM »

I'm afraid I went through it several times, but could not understand your meaningless blabber.

Not my fault you're a bit thick.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2010, 11:02:10 AM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky.
You make the fallacy that starlight comes from the postion in the sky where it appears to come from. In doing this, you show complete misunderstanding of bendy light theory.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2010, 11:02:59 AM »
In the same way, bendy light proposes a curvature of light on the order of (not exactly equivalent to) the curvature of the Earth. The accuracy of measurement you need to demonstrate or rule out this amount of curvature over a distance of several meters is enormous. According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

I'm confused as to what you're point is. One minute you're trying to argue that the curvature is so small we can't measure it, the next you're insisting that bendy light is observable.

Time to put those thinking caps on kids. We'll get there eventually.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2010, 11:41:25 AM »
According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))

This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky.
You make the fallacy that starlight comes from the postion in the sky where it appears to come from. In doing this, you show complete misunderstanding of bendy light theory.

Nope, I don't make that fallacy at all. This method of debunking bendy light in fact relies on the very idea that the light would appear to come from somewhere else. You really are a bit dim aren't you? Let me clout you with the idea some more, see if it sinks in:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2010, 11:54:19 AM »
Your explanation of the bendy light scenario is just the description of a star "circiling" on the night sky around a circle with the center in Polaris.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2010, 12:18:24 PM »
Your explanation of the bendy light scenario is just the description of a star "circiling" on the night sky around a circle with the center in Polaris.

Either you're being deliberately dense and pretending not to understand because you are flailing without a way to refute this, or you genuinely don't understand my simple point by point description.
So either you're a troll or too stupid to be contributing to this topic. I don't mind which of those you want to be.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2010, 12:57:16 PM »
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2010, 01:38:14 PM »
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.

That makes no sense at all. The angular distance between stars remains the same regardless of position in the sky.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2010, 01:40:06 PM »
Exactly.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2010, 01:40:21 PM »
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.

So now you are saying this is the result of one star being nearer than the other to an extent that the perspective effect balances out the shift in position? If that's not what you mean then I don't know what else you are describing.
If that is what you're describing it can be thrown out by the simple fact that it would only work from one fixed point on the ground. Two different observers several hundred miles apart would be able to measure different angles between the two stars.
If I'm incorrect about your description then please provide an example or a diagram.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2010, 01:41:23 PM »
One point can remain fixed relative to an observer and the other one can move, i.e. change the angle between the observer's horizontal and the line of sight to the point. But, the angle between them can remain fixed. This is because there are 3 spatial dimensions.

So now you are saying this is the result of one star being nearer than the other to an extent that the perspective effect balances out the shift in position?
No, this is not what I am saying.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #58 on: January 18, 2010, 01:42:11 PM »
Exactly.

Umm. It disproves "bendy light".

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #59 on: January 18, 2010, 01:43:04 PM »