# I'll test bendy light theory

• 146 Replies
• 13290 Views
?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #120 on: May 17, 2010, 09:15:18 AM »
site rules says don't argue with mods save on the concerns board

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #121 on: May 17, 2010, 01:30:25 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?

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #122 on: May 17, 2010, 03:48:39 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?

Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #123 on: May 17, 2010, 04:10:57 PM »
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
No, it should not.

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #124 on: May 17, 2010, 04:17:28 PM »
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
No, it should not.

So why would light not drop?

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #125 on: May 17, 2010, 05:01:26 PM »
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
No, it should not.

So why would light not drop?
Because light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #126 on: May 17, 2010, 08:40:47 PM »
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
No, it should not.

So why would light not drop?
Because light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.
fine, then it goes at what, a large percentage of c

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 39118
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #127 on: May 17, 2010, 08:46:25 PM »
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
No, it should not.

So why would light not drop?
Because light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.
fine, then it goes at what, a large percentage of c
Light always travels at c.  It's just that the value of c varies depending on the medium.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #128 on: May 17, 2010, 11:06:45 PM »
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
No, it should not.

So why would light not drop?
Because light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.
fine, then it goes at what, a large percentage of c
So?

?

#### Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #129 on: May 18, 2010, 06:53:33 AM »
Light always travels at c.  It's just that the value of c varies depending on the medium.

This is true in a Steve McDonald way. It's like saying that there is a speed of corvette. Well the corvette always travels at the speed of corvette. And so on. Ad trollium.

It would be more correct to say that light travels at a percentage of the absolute speed of light, but people rarely say this, and the intent of the original form is understood.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #130 on: May 18, 2010, 07:34:31 AM »
Light always travels at c.  It's just that the value of c varies depending on the medium.

This is true in a Steve McDonald way. It's like saying that there is a speed of corvette. Well the corvette always travels at the speed of corvette. And so on. Ad trollium.

It would be more correct to say that light travels at a percentage of the absolute speed of light, but people rarely say this, and the intent of the original form is understood.

Gee, thanks Captain Obvious. It's funny you would think this was intended for trolling.

?

#### amazed

• 42
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #131 on: May 20, 2010, 10:38:02 AM »
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?

Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth

The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.

?

#### Space Tourist

• 228
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #132 on: May 20, 2010, 02:09:11 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?

Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth

The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.

errm Gravity does effect light >.> see gravitational lensing
Then you have provided evidence for the Earth being a sphere

?

#### amazed

• 42
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #133 on: May 20, 2010, 02:13:28 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?

Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? 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 (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth

The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.

errm Gravity does effect light >.> see gravitational lensing

Good point, but I think the original discussion was about the observed effects of sunlight on the Earth. I didn't say gravity didn't affect light, it does, but as long as the UA extends to the Earth and the Sun, it would be no different than the observed effects of gravity.

UA would not be able to explain gravitational lensing as it is strong evidence of, obviously, gravitation.

?

#### Damnati

• 10
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2010, 11:23:17 PM »
Talking about merely the premise of the experiment, it should work. Really, you don't need to come up with predictions. You only need to come up with predictions if you are forming a hypothesis. However, the hypothesis is already formed (BLH). You are merely conducting an experiment to prove or disprove it. Which can be done with only moderately accurate equipment. If there is a change of luminosity when the laser is pointing vertically compared to it pointing horizontally (oriented to the surface of the Earth), then BLH has some support. To further this support, you would need to take accurate measurements at varying angles. However, if the luminosity is the same, then you do not need to collect so much data. Only enough data to clearly show that luminosity is not affected by the orientation of the laser in relation to the Earth.

If there is a variance in the luminosity, then you would need to use BLH to accurately predict the variance at the different angles. BLH would then be put to the test again, to see if the predictions are true. If BLH passes both tests, then it is further on the path to becoming an actual theory, and not a proposed hypothesis. If the FEer's say that this test will not work, then it is up to them to provide a way to properly test their hypothesis. If they can come up with no way to test it, then it is not a hypothesis, and thus, certainly cannot be a theory, as it will no longer fall within the scientific realm at all.

?

#### frgough

##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #135 on: May 26, 2010, 07:22:03 PM »
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.

Yep. It is. I've seen it standing in a wheat field in Alberta. There is a discernible curve to the horizon.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #136 on: May 27, 2010, 05:00:51 AM »
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.

Yep. It is. I've seen it standing in a wheat field in Alberta. There is a discernible curve to the horizon.

Whatever you think you saw, it was not the curvature of the earth.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### TheJackel

• 1269
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #137 on: August 30, 2010, 10:07:26 PM »
If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.
ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.

But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend?  Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41971.msg1044643#msg1044643
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

#### Raiku

• 118
• War Squirrel.
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #138 on: September 07, 2010, 03:01:31 PM »
REers have won.  And look what you do:  When all of your imaginary science fails you ignore the evidence of your failures.  You let the thread die because you couldn't fight back.  How can you go on in believing such lies when threads like these where the REers have won pass by so often?

You can make an alternative explanation for each phenomenon that happens like puzzle pieces, but they'll never fit together.  You can't take your ideas and combine them to make a model.  That's why you've never had a solid model:  You can't create one with your ideas.  There will always be problems and inconsistencies with what we observe on the Earth.

Yet you stick to your beliefs like glue.

And when we try to pull you off you give us stupid arguments that don't make sense!  You continue on and on, derailing the argument to pointless things unrelated to a flat Earth...
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

#### EnglshGentleman

• Flat Earth Editor
• 9548
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #139 on: September 07, 2010, 03:10:50 PM »
I'm pretty sure this thread ended in off topic drivel. Everyone left it.

?

#### Raiku

• 118
• War Squirrel.
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #140 on: September 07, 2010, 03:44:11 PM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
I guess all humans have mental problems since we believe the Earth exists...

#### EnglshGentleman

• Flat Earth Editor
• 9548
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #141 on: September 07, 2010, 03:47:18 PM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.

?

#### TheJackel

• 1269
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #142 on: September 08, 2010, 09:02:50 PM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.

When it comes to EAT it's plainly false. It's trying to defy the laws that govern optics and optical phenomenon. The clue in that failure is that light does not bend equally and at the same velocities through various indexes or mediums. Prisms prove this point rather efficiently, and so do green flashes and other optical phenomenon that would not be plausible under EAT/bendy light.  Refraction according to Snell's law all on it's own proves such a concept incorrect.

And btw, The light would never appear 1km below Earth the FE surface area even under the UA model. The surface area wouldn't allow it. There is no way you are going to place the focal point below the vertex position or observer position over a flat surface area of this size. Snell's law will not allow for bot X and Y axis of bending light to the degree FE would require. And what really proves a round earth is that you can achieve an optical effect of a round earth, flat earth, and a concave earth depending on atmospheric conditions, temperature, and according to snell's law.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #143 on: September 08, 2010, 10:36:24 PM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.

The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one. But can you show some thread where there is any reasonable argument in favor of FE or they have a good point about something in FE? Damn, I shouldn't have asked. I already know the answer - "There is" or silence.
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

#### EnglshGentleman

• Flat Earth Editor
• 9548
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #144 on: September 09, 2010, 10:03:53 AM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.

The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one.

?

#### General Disarray

• Official Member
• 5039
• Magic specialist
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #145 on: September 09, 2010, 10:38:56 AM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.

The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one.

I believe the proper response in this instance is "Lurk Moar."
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: I'll test bendy light theory
« Reply #146 on: September 09, 2010, 11:54:49 AM »
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual.  I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.

The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one.