'Bendy Light' Discussion

  • 355 Replies
  • 89290 Views
?

2fst4u

  • 2494
  • +0/-0
  • High and Tighty
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #240 on: January 29, 2010, 05:40:59 PM »
But they used these stars to navigate. If the south celestial poles led him to different places depending on his longitude, how else would he follow such a west-east path (ignoring censorship of records)? He would have had to switch to different celestial bodies. Then how would he know when to switch? He was using the stars these stars to navigate and so finding this point to switch to a different celestial body would require him knowing his longitude, something he couldn't have done without using these stars.

Your very own theory creates a paradox.

I don't see how. The first explorers to the south would have observed the stars the way they were and figured out how to navigate using them, since before people explored south of the Equator nobody except southern natives knew what the southern skies looked like. Only later might the records have been altered to amend this.

Also, HE mapped New Zealand and so must have travelled to the southern latitudes to do so.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he travelled south of the Equator for the entire journey. He could have crossed to the north of it while in the region which observes one south celestial pole, and back to the south in the region which observes another.
you can't map a country from a distance. Contrary to belief, New Zealand is quite a diagonal country so I'm sure if such celestial poles existed, he would have observed at least two at some stage.

RET states that there is ONE given point for 90 degrees South (or technically 89.9 recurring) and that two people, following the southern cross (which points south at ALL times) from different sides of the earth would eventually end up in the same place (which we know they do). FET theory states that they would end up further away from each other.

And not to mention the fact that you said earlier about there being one of these independent celestial south poles above Antarctica... Does this mean there is a common pole above Antarctica and the geographic south pole? In other words, it is a point in space rather than a ring? You have contradicted yourself
« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 08:05:03 PM by 2fst4u »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #241 on: January 30, 2010, 06:25:41 AM »
Yes, but that doesn't mean he travelled south of the Equator for the entire journey. He could have crossed to the north of it while in the region which observes one south celestial pole, and back to the south in the region which observes another.

No, he could not have done that. You're just embarrassing yourself with your made up gibberish now. You're also bringing conspiracy into it which means even you have run out of made-up laws of physics to throw into the mix. Now can it, troll.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #242 on: January 30, 2010, 12:02:53 PM »
There are only two celestial poles... one north, and one south.  I'm sure astronomers would've noticed a third one by now.  They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.

Could you direct me to information regarding the observatory which is mapping the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town?

Here's one such survey of the entire southern celestial hemisphere in the near and far IR bands, using a telescope in Chile:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn7048r272urg224/

Here's another survey of the southern celestial hemisphere:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16100615j6l9579/fulltext.pdf?page=1

In the radio regime, the NRAO has conducted a survey of the ENTIRE SKY north of -40 declination (the skies above both Cape Town and Buenos Aires are at about -34 degrees declination)  using the Very Large Array:

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/

Definition of an electron Parsifal. All electrons have the same charge, spin, mass, and some more stuff. They are all the same or they are not electrons.

The definition of an electron is not a law of physics.

Yes it is.  The standard model defines the electron as a fundamental particle having a lepton number of 1, a charge of -e, a spin of 1/2, and a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 12:15:16 PM by cwolfe »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #243 on: February 01, 2010, 03:07:48 AM »
I wish to do this.
Could you show me a map that would tell me where the multiple southern celestial poles are?
Or is there no map to speak of?

There isn't one, because the exact number and location of the poles are not known.

you can't map a country from a distance. Contrary to belief, New Zealand is quite a diagonal country so I'm sure if such celestial poles existed, he would have observed at least two at some stage.

No, the idea is that each singular landmass is entirely within the region observing at most one south celestial pole, since there are no reports of multiple south celestial poles being visible from the same location.

RET states that there is ONE given point for 90 degrees South (or technically 89.9 recurring) and that two people, following the southern cross (which points south at ALL times) from different sides of the earth would eventually end up in the same place (which we know they do). FET theory states that they would end up further away from each other.

There is more than one point corresponding to 90 °S latitude in RET.

And not to mention the fact that you said earlier about there being one of these independent celestial south poles above Antarctica... Does this mean there is a common pole above Antarctica and the geographic south pole? In other words, it is a point in space rather than a ring? You have contradicted yourself

The geographic south pole is a ring. There are multiple celestial poles (corresponding to points in the sky) above it in various locations.

No, he could not have done that.

It's not possible to cross the Equator twice?

Here's one such survey of the entire southern celestial hemisphere in the near and far IR bands, using a telescope in Chile:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn7048r272urg224/

Here's another survey of the southern celestial hemisphere:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16100615j6l9579/fulltext.pdf?page=1

In the radio regime, the NRAO has conducted a survey of the ENTIRE SKY north of -40 declination (the skies above both Cape Town and Buenos Aires are at about -34 degrees declination)  using the Very Large Array:

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/

None of these are valid answers to my question.

Yes it is.  The standard model defines the electron as a fundamental particle having a lepton number of 1, a charge of -e, a spin of 1/2, and a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2.

That is a definition, not a law.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #244 on: February 01, 2010, 03:19:04 AM »
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #245 on: February 01, 2010, 03:26:19 AM »
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
This thread has nothing to do with what people believe, and everything to do with examining arguments for a certain model of light. Did you ever have a debate in high school where you had to argue for a position that you personally disagree with?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #246 on: February 01, 2010, 03:42:21 AM »
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?

As ERTW pointed out, this is irrelevant.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Its a Sphere

  • 1490
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #247 on: February 01, 2010, 04:00:30 AM »
It is irrelevant whether I have confirmed these hypotheses or not. I was asked to describe the model I am using, and I did so. Others have claimed that it is flawed, so the burden is on them to provide evidence against it. I am not trying to make a case for my model being any better than any other, simply describing it as it is.

As I said.
It would be somewhat difficult to observe something from a place where existance has yet to be confirmed.

Though it is good to know we can now discount your entire model.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #248 on: February 01, 2010, 04:36:54 AM »
Yes it is.  The standard model defines the electron as a fundamental particle having a lepton number of 1, a charge of -e, a spin of 1/2, and a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2.

That is a definition, not a law.

It is both a definition and a law.  If a particle does not have those properties, it isn't an electron.  It's part of the standard model of particle physics.

Here's one such survey of the entire southern celestial hemisphere in the near and far IR bands, using a telescope in Chile:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn7048r272urg224/

Here's another survey of the southern celestial hemisphere:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16100615j6l9579/fulltext.pdf?page=1

In the radio regime, the NRAO has conducted a survey of the ENTIRE SKY north of -40 declination (the skies above both Cape Town and Buenos Aires are at about -34 degrees declination)  using the Very Large Array:

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/nvss/

None of these are valid answers to my question.

Yes they are.  You asked for a study that is mapping out the sky above buenos aires and cape town.  These all cover that region of the sky.

Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?

As ERTW pointed out, this is irrelevant.

If you honestly believe that the Earth is round, then you must concede that the current model for sunsets and sunrises is far, far simpler than magical light bending which has no real evidence.  The model works, and it is wonderfully simple.  Why arbitrarily change the shape of the Earth and make the behavior of light more complicated?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 04:40:13 AM by cwolfe »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #249 on: February 01, 2010, 04:50:46 AM »
It is both a definition and a law.  If a particle does not have those properties, it isn't an electron.  It's part of the standard model of particle physics.

Then the question still stands; why is there more than one of them? Why are there all these electrons around which are exactly the same?

You asked for a study that is mapping out the sky above buenos aires and cape town.

No, I asked for an observatory which is mapping out the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town.

If you honestly believe that the Earth is round, then you must concede that the current model for sunsets and sunrises is far, far simpler than magical light bending which has no real evidence.  The model works, and it is wonderfully simple.  Why arbitrarily change the shape of the Earth and make the behavior of light more complicated?

My opinions are irrelevant in this thread.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #250 on: February 01, 2010, 04:55:11 AM »
Parsifal, since you have let it be known that you are not actually a believer in FET yourself, would you care to explain to us why you do not actually believe it?
This thread has nothing to do with what people believe, and everything to do with examining arguments for a certain model of light. Did you ever have a debate in high school where you had to argue for a position that you personally disagree with?

Actually, I have never had to do that.  I seriously doubt that I could ever persuasively argue for a position I didn't believe in myself.  I just wouldn't be able to rid myself of the feeling that it would be fundamentally dishonest to do so.  Consequently, I never had any desire to join a debating team where I might have been assigned to argue in favor of something with which I disagreed.  I would have felt especially bad if I actually succeeded in persuading someone to believe in and act on something I knew to be false.  To me, the only truly valid criterion for determining the winner in a debate is which debater's position is demonstrably most likely to be true.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 05:05:36 AM by Rational U.S. Viking »

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #251 on: February 01, 2010, 05:01:07 AM »
It is both a definition and a law.  If a particle does not have those properties, it isn't an electron.  It's part of the standard model of particle physics.

Then the question still stands; why is there more than one of them? Why are there all these electrons around which are exactly the same?

It's just one of the many different kinds of fundamental particles created in the Big Bang.  For more details, you may want to talk to a particle physicist.

Quote
You asked for a study that is mapping out the sky above buenos aires and cape town.

No, I asked for an observatory which is mapping out the sky midway between Buenos Aires and Cape Town.
 

So what were you hoping for?  A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean?  You must not understand how astronomy works then.

Quote
If you honestly believe that the Earth is round, then you must concede that the current model for sunsets and sunrises is far, far simpler than magical light bending which has no real evidence.  The model works, and it is wonderfully simple.  Why arbitrarily change the shape of the Earth and make the behavior of light more complicated?

My opinions are irrelevant in this thread.

Yes they are.  You're proposing an alternate model to explain something which is already explained perfectly by a much simpler model.  A scientific model which is more complicated, but doesn't offer more explanatory power, is automatically an inferior one.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #252 on: February 01, 2010, 05:03:53 AM »
So what were you hoping for?  A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean?  You must not understand how astronomy works then.

I was hoping for justification for this claim:

They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.

Since you either cannot or will not provide any such justification, I expect you to retract that statement.


You're proposing an alternate model to explain something which is already explained perfectly by a much simpler model.  A scientific model which is more complicated, but doesn't offer more explanatory power, is automatically an inferior one.

How is a curved Earth any simpler than curved light?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #253 on: February 01, 2010, 05:09:39 AM »

How is a curved Earth any simpler than curved light?

How can you seriously ask that, given the complexity of your proposed equations for bendy light compared to the equations for a spherical earth?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #254 on: February 01, 2010, 05:11:32 AM »
How can you seriously ask that, given the complexity of your proposed equations for bendy light compared to the equations for a spherical earth?

Bendy light is very simply described if one looks at the acceleration of an individual photon in terms of its direction of travel. This translates into a complex description of the shape a light ray traces out over time, however.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #255 on: February 01, 2010, 05:18:34 AM »
This translates into a complex description of the shape a light ray traces out over time, however.

Exactly!  So why is this in any way preferable to the RET view?  You obviously don't think it is yourself, or you would be an actual proponent of FET and "bendy light."
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 05:21:14 AM by Rational U.S. Viking »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #256 on: February 01, 2010, 05:21:05 AM »
Exactly!  So why is this in any way preferable to the RET view?

The basic concept is simple. It has some complex consequences, but so does RET.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #257 on: February 01, 2010, 06:32:29 AM »
So what were you hoping for?  A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean?  You must not understand how astronomy works then.

I was hoping for justification for this claim:

They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.

Since you either cannot or will not provide any such justification, I expect you to retract that statement.

What part of "Astronomers have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere" don't you understand?  That's exactly what those surveys I posted have accomplished.

Quote
You're proposing an alternate model to explain something which is already explained perfectly by a much simpler model.  A scientific model which is more complicated, but doesn't offer more explanatory power, is automatically an inferior one.

How is a curved Earth any simpler than curved light?

Because the shape of the Earth is a relatively simple one.  It's an oblate spheroid.  If you really can't see how straight light propagation with a round, rotating Earth, consistent with the existing laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, is simpler than a flat Earth with bendy light, which contradicts both gravitation and electromagnetism, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3125
  • +0/-0
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #258 on: February 01, 2010, 01:01:18 PM »
So what were you hoping for?  A floating observatory in the middle of the atlantic ocean?  You must not understand how astronomy works then.

I was hoping for justification for this claim:

They have the entire sky mapped out about a million times over.

Since you either cannot or will not provide any such justification, I expect you to retract that statement.



Lrn2CaptainCook.  :P
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

2fst4u

  • 2494
  • +0/-0
  • High and Tighty
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #259 on: February 01, 2010, 01:37:04 PM »

you can't map a country from a distance. Contrary to belief, New Zealand is quite a diagonal country so I'm sure if such celestial poles existed, he would have observed at least two at some stage.

No, the idea is that each singular landmass is entirely within the region observing at most one south celestial pole, since there are no reports of multiple south celestial poles being visible from the same location.

RET states that there is ONE given point for 90 degrees South (or technically 89.9 recurring) and that two people, following the southern cross (which points south at ALL times) from different sides of the earth would eventually end up in the same place (which we know they do). FET theory states that they would end up further away from each other.

There is more than one point corresponding to 90 °S latitude in RET.

And not to mention the fact that you said earlier about there being one of these independent celestial south poles above Antarctica... Does this mean there is a common pole above Antarctica and the geographic south pole? In other words, it is a point in space rather than a ring? You have contradicted yourself

The geographic south pole is a ring. There are multiple celestial poles (corresponding to points in the sky) above it in various locations.

1. That's because multiple poles don't exist. Hence the lack of observations of them

2. Yes, I know. But you didn't address the fact that two people following the southern cross will end up in different places when we know that they WILL joint up in the same point.

3. Antarctica is a a convex landmass. It does not encircle earth. We know this to be true.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #260 on: February 01, 2010, 05:30:21 PM »
What part of "Astronomers have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere" don't you understand?  That's exactly what those surveys I posted have accomplished.

How can they have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere if they haven't observed it from all possible locations? How can they be sure that it would appear the same everywhere?

Because the shape of the Earth is a relatively simple one.  It's an oblate spheroid.  If you really can't see how straight light propagation with a round, rotating Earth, consistent with the existing laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, is simpler than a flat Earth with bendy light, which contradicts both gravitation and electromagnetism, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Bendy light contradicts neither gravitation nor electromagnetism.

1. That's because multiple poles don't exist. Hence the lack of observations of them

2. Yes, I know. But you didn't address the fact that two people following the southern cross will end up in different places when we know that they WILL joint up in the same point.

3. Antarctica is a a convex landmass. It does not encircle earth. We know this to be true.

All you've done in this post is spout RE propaganda without any evidence for your claims. When you provide evidence for a singular south celestial pole, observers navigating southward using the stars all meeting at the same point and Antarctica being a convex landmass, then I will be able to give you a more meaningful response.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #261 on: February 01, 2010, 06:53:36 PM »
What part of "Astronomers have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere" don't you understand?  That's exactly what those surveys I posted have accomplished.

How can they have mapped out the entire southern celestial hemisphere if they haven't observed it from all possible locations? How can they be sure that it would appear the same everywhere?


Because from any good vantage point on the Earth, one can see half the celestial sphere, from the zenith (90 degrees altitude) to the horizon (0 degrees altitude) and all around (0-360 degrees azimuth, measured NESW from the meridian, which is an imaginary arc connecting the zenith to the north horizon).  Given the time of day and latitude, one can convert altitude and azimuth to right ascension and declination.  Because the celestial sphere rotates around the Earth, one can map out the same portion of the celestial sphere from anywhere at the same latitude.  This is how the VLA, in NM, was able to survey the entire sky north of -40 degrees declination.

Quote
Because the shape of the Earth is a relatively simple one.  It's an oblate spheroid.  If you really can't see how straight light propagation with a round, rotating Earth, consistent with the existing laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, is simpler than a flat Earth with bendy light, which contradicts both gravitation and electromagnetism, then I'm not sure what to say to you.

Bendy light contradicts neither gravitation nor electromagnetism.


Bendy light doesn't contradict gravitation, but a flat Earth does.  Bendy light does, however, contradict electromagnetism, which has no provision for the kind of dramatic bending required for a flat Earth to appear round.  Only in GR do we observe bending of light, and even for things as massive as the Sun only a miniscule amount of bending is observed.  Astronomers, however, can use a process called gravitational lensing to observe objects extremely far away.  In this case the object bending the light has to be immensely massive, such as a galaxy cluster or a black hole.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 07:02:49 PM by cwolfe »

*

Skeleton

  • 955
  • +0/-0
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #262 on: February 02, 2010, 11:56:07 AM »
All you've done in this post is spout RE propaganda without any evidence for your claims. When you provide evidence for a singular south celestial pole, observers navigating southward using the stars all meeting at the same point and Antarctica being a convex landmass, then I will be able to give you a more meaningful response.

There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.
Your an idiot Parsifal.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #263 on: February 02, 2010, 01:05:03 PM »
If you want to be taken seriously here, you should refrain from personal attacks.  Parsifal is definitely not an idiot.

?

LiceFarm

  • 540
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #264 on: February 02, 2010, 01:43:16 PM »
Bendy light contradicts neither gravitation nor electromagnetism.

Wrong.

Snells law.
Fermats Principle of least time.
Maxwells Laws.
Einsteins General relativity.

This isn't news. You just keep posting the same dull crap over and over again Steve. You're the student that never learns.

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #265 on: February 02, 2010, 05:38:34 PM »
Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the Fermat principle.  If light tends to travel in the path that minimizes time of travel, why would it bend in an arc?

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #266 on: February 03, 2010, 09:25:40 AM »
because the speed of propagation is not the same at all points.  ::)

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #267 on: February 03, 2010, 09:29:03 AM »
because the speed of propagation is not the same at all points.  ::)

But you said yourself earlier that light does not accelerate, and that the only thing that's changing is the path direction.  If the speed is changing, it's accelerating.  Make up your mind.

Or are you referring to refraction?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 09:30:59 AM by cwolfe »

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #268 on: February 03, 2010, 09:30:00 AM »
where did i say light's speed is not changing?

?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: 'Bendy Light' Discussion
« Reply #269 on: February 03, 2010, 09:35:57 AM »
where did i say light's speed is not changing?

light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.