I'll test bendy light theory

There is no dust in the mirror. The resonant cavity is near perfectly sealed. Otherwise it wouldn't work. And what we measure is it's luminosity, and it's very easy to do.

There is my step-by-step guide:

1º Post my idea on the forum

2º Get some FE'rs support, so the experiment would be worthy. All I need is that FE'rs say "Oh! Ideally, it will work as a BL detector!". Remember that i'm talking about the idea, none math is done here. WE ARE AT THIS STAGE

3º I'll go to the lab, gather some info about the laser I'll use and post some photos of it, wich clearly shows the model etc etc.

4º I'll do the math, I'll calculate the expeted "bright loss" with BL. If it is detectable with my photometre I'll move to step 5.

5º I'll go to the lab and make the experiment.

6º With the data on my hand I'll tell you if BL does exist or not.

Notice that steps 3-6 need some effort. I'll only move to step 3 if it's worth. So, Mizzle, do you think that there would be any "bright loss" when rotating the laser due to BL as I stated before (remember, I'm not talking about measuring it, i'm only talking about the idea)? Parsec said yes, what do you think about my experiment?

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 31, 2010, 03:17:56 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 31, 2010, 09:15:21 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 31, 2010, 05:36:25 AM

Quote from: corleone on March 31, 2010, 03:14:17 AM

BUMP

It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...

You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.

Diagram plz.

Why?

I don't agree with this assertion either.

You don't agree with me? Here's the disproof in a simple point by point format.

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.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 04:07:34 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 31, 2010, 03:17:56 PM

Quote from: SupahLovah on March 31, 2010, 09:15:21 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 31, 2010, 05:36:25 AM

Quote from: corleone on March 31, 2010, 03:14:17 AM

BUMP

It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...

You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.

Diagram plz.

Why?

I don't agree with this assertion either.

You don't agree with me? Here's the disproof in a simple point by point format.

Quote

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.

Sure, this might be true if the Earth was round, but if it wasn't round, i don't think this distortion would take place.

Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?

Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?

I'm trying to figure out why you came to the conclusion that things near the horizon would be distorted, but I can't.
Why is this supposed to be the case?
I haven't been here very long, so maybe this has been covered already, so I'm just wondering.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 01, 2010, 07:23:16 PM

Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?

I'm trying to figure out why you came to the conclusion that things near the horizon would be distorted, but I can't.
Why is this supposed to be the case?
I haven't been here very long, so maybe this has been covered already, so I'm just wondering.

This is the case with Parsifail's "conventional" bendy light theory. As I just realised in the other thread, I'm not quite understanding your theory and thought it was different than it is. Yours is quite different and not subject to the same arguments so forget what I said there.

Quote from: Mizzle on April 02, 2010, 05:02:23 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 01, 2010, 07:23:16 PM

Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?

I'm trying to figure out why you came to the conclusion that things near the horizon would be distorted, but I can't.
Why is this supposed to be the case?
I haven't been here very long, so maybe this has been covered already, so I'm just wondering.

This is the case with Parsifail's "conventional" bendy light theory. As I just realised in the other thread, I'm not quite understanding your theory and thought it was different than it is. Yours is quite different and not subject to the same arguments so forget what I said there.

Okay. 

There is no dust in the mirror. The resonant cavity is near perfectly sealed. Otherwise it wouldn't work. And what we measure is it's luminosity, and it's very easy to do.

There is my step-by-step guide:

1º Post my idea on the forum

2º Get some FE'rs support, so the experiment would be worthy. All I need is that FE'rs say "Oh! Ideally, it will work as a BL detector!". Remember that i'm talking about the idea, none math is done here. WE ARE AT THIS STAGE

3º I'll go to the lab, gather some info about the laser I'll use and post some photos of it, wich clearly shows the model etc etc.

4º I'll do the math, I'll calculate the expeted "bright loss" with BL. If it is detectable with my photometre I'll move to step 5.

5º I'll go to the lab and make the experiment.

6º With the data on my hand I'll tell you if BL does exist or not.

Notice that steps 3-6 need some effort. I'll only move to step 3 if it's worth. So, Mizzle, do you think that there would be any "bright loss" when rotating the laser due to BL as I stated before (remember, I'm not talking about measuring it, i'm only talking about the idea)? Parsec said yes, what do you think about my experiment?

anyone who answers to this? mizzle?

Quote from: corleone on April 01, 2010, 06:23:48 AM

There is no dust in the mirror. The resonant cavity is near perfectly sealed. Otherwise it wouldn't work. And what we measure is it's luminosity, and it's very easy to do.

There is my step-by-step guide:

1º Post my idea on the forum

2º Get some FE'rs support, so the experiment would be worthy. All I need is that FE'rs say "Oh! Ideally, it will work as a BL detector!". Remember that i'm talking about the idea, none math is done here. WE ARE AT THIS STAGE

3º I'll go to the lab, gather some info about the laser I'll use and post some photos of it, wich clearly shows the model etc etc.

4º I'll do the math, I'll calculate the expeted "bright loss" with BL. If it is detectable with my photometre I'll move to step 5.

5º I'll go to the lab and make the experiment.

6º With the data on my hand I'll tell you if BL does exist or not.

Notice that steps 3-6 need some effort. I'll only move to step 3 if it's worth. So, Mizzle, do you think that there would be any "bright loss" when rotating the laser due to BL as I stated before (remember, I'm not talking about measuring it, i'm only talking about the idea)? Parsec said yes, what do you think about my experiment?

anyone who answers to this? mizzle?

With or without 'bendy light,' conventionial or otherwise, I don't think you'll measure any loss.  If you take into consideration that when the light is supposed to be 'bending' in one direction, it should obviously bend an equal amount in the reciprocal.  Maybe I don't get the concept of conventional 'bendy light,' so I could be wrong.
I just believe that light might bend, not in any specific direction or in reference to anything other than the origin of the light itself.  Kind of like how magnetic field lines 'bend.'  I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.

I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.

Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?

Quote from: Mizzle on April 03, 2010, 05:28:01 PM

I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.

Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?

Which it doesn't.

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 05, 2010, 04:33:24 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on April 03, 2010, 05:28:01 PM

I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.

Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?

Which it doesn't.

It does taking away hills and such, but that's because the world is such a vast sphere that we only get to see a very limited amount, which happens to appear flat.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 05, 2010, 11:40:46 AM

Quote from: flyingmonkey on April 05, 2010, 04:33:24 AM

Quote from: Mizzle on April 03, 2010, 05:28:01 PM

I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.

Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?

Which it doesn't.

It does taking away hills and such, but that's because the world is such a vast sphere that we only get to see a very limited amount, which happens to appear flat.

No, my point is even level terrain does not look like what you'd see if the earth was flat. Flat earthers assume it does, but if the earth really looked like it was flat the majority of people on the south coast of England would have no trouble seeing France on a clear day, for example. Whatever the excuse for why we can't see things so far away, the fact remains that the earth does NOT look like it's flat. If the earth looked like it was flat, the horizon on the sea would look a lot further away than the 3 miles or so it does.

Ah yes, when talking about the curvature heading away from the viewer.

The curvature from end to end, on the visible horizon, is what I was talking about.

BUMP

BUMP

This is Flat Earth Debate. Don't make low-content posts here again, because you'll receive a suspension if you do.

BUMP

Your bump is, unfortunately, meaningless.
The debate on Bendy light or really anything here is moot.  There are people here who say they believe in something but really don't and simply want to incite discussion and frustration from others.  I'm sorry to say but you could have the best experiment in the world that proves light doesn't bend and it would change nothing here.

Quote from: corleone on April 23, 2010, 11:41:12 AM

BUMP

Your bump is, unfortunately, meaningless.
The debate on Bendy light or really anything here is moot.  There are people here who say they believe in something but really don't and simply want to incite discussion and frustration from others.  I'm sorry to say but you could have the best experiment in the world that proves light doesn't bend and it would change nothing here.

I agree, its a shame.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 23, 2010, 11:15:40 PM

Quote from: corleone on April 23, 2010, 11:41:12 AM

BUMP

Your bump is, unfortunately, meaningless.
The debate on Bendy light or really anything here is moot.  There are people here who say they believe in something but really don't and simply want to incite discussion and frustration from others.  I'm sorry to say but you could have the best experiment in the world that proves light doesn't bend and it would change nothing here.

I agree, its a shame.

You agree that no experiment will change anything about bendy light, no matter how perfect?

You agree that no experiment will change anything about bendy light, no matter how perfect?

The fact that lasers work disproves bendy light, since the Q-factor of the laser cavity would not be high enough to sustain output if the light bent away from the optical axis during operation.

I could name several other experiments which I have performed as a laser physicist which disprove bendy light, but hey, what's the fun in that? I haven't followed a photon from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth, so I can't say for certain what happens in between!

Quote from: Lorddave on April 24, 2010, 09:17:10 AM

You agree that no experiment will change anything about bendy light, no matter how perfect?

The fact that lasers work disproves bendy light, since the Q-factor of the laser cavity would not be high enough to sustain output if the light bent away from the optical axis during operation.

I could name several other experiments which I have performed as a laser physicist which disprove bendy light, but hey, what's the fun in that? I haven't followed a photon from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth, so I can't say for certain what happens in between!

I know too tath lasers wouldn't even work, but you are right, where is the fun? it's funnier going to the lab and throwing the evidence to their faces rather than doing some math.

Quote from: corleone on March 21, 2010, 06:42:50 PM

Of course I did, but I don't get any equation, or answer better than "unknown" or "we are working on it". Where is the thread that explains bendy ligt properly?

A light ray emitted at an angle ? with the horizontal in the north-south direction from an altitude y₀ traces a trajectory given by (to first approximation):

y = y₀ + x*tan ? + ?*(1 + 2*tan² ?)*x²/(4*L),

where:

L = 10⁷ m.

The equation at last, and its a quadratic
So are you saying that if I stand tall enough, I should be able to see California from DC?

I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.

I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.

see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics

I was referring to the experiment proposed by the OP.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 14, 2010, 12:43:07 PM

I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.

see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics

That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.

I was referring to the experiment proposed by the OP.

sry, wrong thread

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on May 14, 2010, 05:55:12 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 14, 2010, 12:43:07 PM

I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.

see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics

That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.

*facepalm*

it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?

This is Flat Earth Debate. Don't make low-content posts here again, because you'll receive a suspension if you do.

Hey, uh..."Lord" Wilford...this is probably the most worthless post I've seen in this entire thread. Cheers, okay, thanks friend, ur cool.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on April 23, 2010, 06:05:20 PM

This is Flat Earth Debate. Don't make low-content posts here again, because you'll receive a suspension if you do.

Hey, uh..."Lord" Wilford...this is probably the most worthless post I've seen in this entire thread. Cheers, okay, thanks friend, ur cool.

Enjoy your week off.