# Axes to FET Part 2

• 13 Replies
• 3311 Views
?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Axes to FET Part 2
« on: April 25, 2010, 10:20:14 PM »
One working theory I've heard of the horizon effect is bendy light or electromagnetic acceleration.
This accounts for the sinking ship effect and Bedford level stuff.

The problem with it is the math. When a force is enacted on something, it undergoes acceleration proportional to that force.
aka F=MA
UA tells of a force that is equal for all parts of flat earth, and constant. If you have constant force, you have constant acceleration. therefore any mass or beam of light should follow a quadratic path.

The problem with FET, is that reality requires light to move in a circular path. Why is this?  Take two points that would be opposite each other on a round earth. No matter how high up you get, you will never be able to see the other point.

On a flat earth however you would. Imagine that a laser is pointed parallel to the earth, in the direction of this other point. If the acceleration in the up-down direction is constant, then at some height, you will be able to see this light.

And this key, because it shows were the annoying symmetry of bendy light theory with a round earth breaks down.
light would have to bend in a quadratic because of the aforementioned reasons, but the round earth follows a circular curve

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2010, 11:01:36 PM »
Why was my reply erased? OP's post does not make any sense whatsoever. It was a legitimate reply. I will say it again:

wat?

EDIT:
One working theory I've heard of the horizon effect is bendy light or electromagnetic acceleration.
This accounts for the sinking ship effect and Bedford level stuff.

The problem with it is the math. When a force is enacted on something, it undergoes acceleration proportional to that force.
aka F=MA
UA tells of a force that is equal for all parts of flat earth, and constant. If you have constant force, you have constant acceleration. therefore any mass or beam of light should follow a quadratic path.
What's the mass of light?

The problem with FET, is that reality requires light to move in a circular path. Why is this?  Take two points that would be opposite each other on a round earth. No matter how high up you get, you will never be able to see the other point.

On a flat earth however you would. Imagine that a laser is pointed parallel to the earth, in the direction of this other point. If the acceleration in the up-down direction is constant, then at some height, you will be able to see this light.

And this key, because it shows were the annoying symmetry of bendy light theory with a round earth breaks down.
light would have to bend in a quadratic because of the aforementioned reasons, but the round earth follows a circular curve

This is complete gibberish. Care to provide a sketch for your ideas?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 12:01:34 AM by parsec »

?

#### bowler

• 871
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2010, 12:42:06 AM »
Why was my reply erased? OP's post does not make any sense whatsoever. It was a legitimate reply. I will say it again:

wat?

EDIT:
One working theory I've heard of the horizon effect is bendy light or electromagnetic acceleration.
This accounts for the sinking ship effect and Bedford level stuff.

The problem with it is the math. When a force is enacted on something, it undergoes acceleration proportional to that force.
aka F=MA
UA tells of a force that is equal for all parts of flat earth, and constant. If you have constant force, you have constant acceleration. therefore any mass or beam of light should follow a quadratic path.
What's the mass of light?

Thats pedantic, after the mass there should maybe have been a comma but we all know what it means. Oh no im arguing over grammar deffo been here to long.

The problem with FET, is that reality requires light to move in a circular path. Why is this?  Take two points that would be opposite each other on a round earth. No matter how high up you get, you will never be able to see the other point.

On a flat earth however you would. Imagine that a laser is pointed parallel to the earth, in the direction of this other point. If the acceleration in the up-down direction is constant, then at some height, you will be able to see this light.

And this key, because it shows were the annoying symmetry of bendy light theory with a round earth breaks down.
light would have to bend in a quadratic because of the aforementioned reasons, but the round earth follows a circular curve

This is complete gibberish. Care to provide a sketch for your ideas?

I agree this is complete gibberish. Though I think art of the problem is so is EA so its hard to construct a logical agrument against gibberish because its gibberish.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2010, 06:39:04 AM »
Why was my reply erased? OP's post does not make any sense whatsoever. It was a legitimate reply. I will say it again:

wat?

EDIT:
One working theory I've heard of the horizon effect is bendy light or electromagnetic acceleration.
This accounts for the sinking ship effect and Bedford level stuff.

The problem with it is the math. When a force is enacted on something, it undergoes acceleration proportional to that force.
aka F=MA
UA tells of a force that is equal for all parts of flat earth, and constant. If you have constant force, you have constant acceleration. therefore any mass or beam of light should follow a quadratic path.
What's the mass of light?

Thats pedantic, after the mass there should maybe have been a comma but we all know what it means. Oh no im arguing over grammar deffo been here to long.

The problem with FET, is that reality requires light to move in a circular path. Why is this?  Take two points that would be opposite each other on a round earth. No matter how high up you get, you will never be able to see the other point.

On a flat earth however you would. Imagine that a laser is pointed parallel to the earth, in the direction of this other point. If the acceleration in the up-down direction is constant, then at some height, you will be able to see this light.

And this key, because it shows were the annoying symmetry of bendy light theory with a round earth breaks down.
light would have to bend in a quadratic because of the aforementioned reasons, but the round earth follows a circular curve

This is complete gibberish. Care to provide a sketch for your ideas?

I agree this is complete gibberish. Though I think art of the problem is so is EA so its hard to construct a logical agrument against gibberish because its gibberish.
You are dumb and you post dumb things.

#### Lord Wilmore

• Vice President
• Flat Earth Believer
• 12107
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2010, 06:40:21 AM »
Please keep low-content posts out of Flat Earth Debate.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

#### bowler

• 871
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2010, 06:44:11 AM »
I like to fit in

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2010, 06:01:36 PM »
It's not gibberish, what I meant is:

light while not having mass does have momentum, so to change said momentum, you must have a impulse, which is proportional to force

if the force is constant, then the acceleration is too.
integrate twice with respect to time to get a quadratic for distance.
so if light bends due to a constant force, it has a quadratic path.
Now point A is on the opposite hemisphere in relation to point B
If we were to start a laser parallel to the earth at A, and aim it towards B
there will be a point where the beam is over point B.
this is because the position vector is x(t)=ct and y(t)= .5at2

On a round earth, the laser would never reach B. Ever.
And this is a break in symmetry.

the only way to fix this is for light to take the position vector x(t)=acos(t) and y(t)=asin(t) where a is the radius of earth
this gives the path of a circle, which is what we needed to keep the symmetry

problem with that is, the force that would give that path is centripetal :http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Centripetal_force.svg/300px-Centripetal_force.svg.png

And GL flat earthers for explaining that one.

#### Catchpa

• 1018
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2010, 08:18:40 AM »
No one believes bendy light but Parsifal who’s not even FE.

There's no point arguing about it anymore.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds

?

#### trig

• 2240
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2010, 09:47:52 AM »
It's not gibberish, what I meant is:

light while not having mass does have momentum, so to change said momentum, you must have a impulse, which is proportional to force

if the force is constant, then the acceleration is too.
integrate twice with respect to time to get a quadratic for distance.
so if light bends due to a constant force, it has a quadratic path.
Now point A is on the opposite hemisphere in relation to point B
If we were to start a laser parallel to the earth at A, and aim it towards B
there will be a point where the beam is over point B.
this is because the position vector is x(t)=ct and y(t)= .5at2

On a round earth, the laser would never reach B. Ever.
And this is a break in symmetry.

the only way to fix this is for light to take the position vector x(t)=acos(t) and y(t)=asin(t) where a is the radius of earth
this gives the path of a circle, which is what we needed to keep the symmetry

problem with that is, the force that would give that path is centripetal :http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Centripetal_force.svg/300px-Centripetal_force.svg.png

And GL flat earthers for explaining that one.

You are making the mistake of seeing this as a two dimensional problem, where light only bends upwards and even though the arguments of FE'rs are pretty slim, you end failing to the cheap debating tactics of FE'rs.

This is a three dimensional problem, by which, if the "theory" is true, the light accelerates both vertically and horizontally, in an amount that grows as you go further South to an incredible 60 degrees of declination change when you reach the South Pole.

Whatever could accelerate light (something that does not exist in real science in a planet like ours) could accelerate it in one dimension, but not in two or three. Even if, after rewriting most of the known physics theories, we do get an accelerated light beam that hides the hull of a boat, that would be a vertical acceleration that does not explain why the declination of the sun at sundown is the same in every part of the Earth on a given day, except very close to the poles.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42703
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2010, 04:19:13 PM »
No one believes bendy light but Parsifal who’s not even FE.

What makes you think that Parsifal believes in bendy light?
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.

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2010, 09:01:34 PM »
It's not gibberish, what I meant is:

light while not having mass does have momentum, so to change said momentum, you must have a impulse, which is proportional to force

if the force is constant, then the acceleration is too.
integrate twice with respect to time to get a quadratic for distance.
so if light bends due to a constant force, it has a quadratic path.
Now point A is on the opposite hemisphere in relation to point B
If we were to start a laser parallel to the earth at A, and aim it towards B
there will be a point where the beam is over point B.
this is because the position vector is x(t)=ct and y(t)= .5at2

On a round earth, the laser would never reach B. Ever.
And this is a break in symmetry.

the only way to fix this is for light to take the position vector x(t)=acos(t) and y(t)=asin(t) where a is the radius of earth
this gives the path of a circle, which is what we needed to keep the symmetry

problem with that is, the force that would give that path is centripetal :http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Centripetal_force.svg/300px-Centripetal_force.svg.png

And GL flat earthers for explaining that one.

You are making the mistake of seeing this as a two dimensional problem, where light only bends upwards and even though the arguments of FE'rs are pretty slim, you end failing to the cheap debating tactics of FE'rs.

This is a three dimensional problem, by which, if the "theory" is true, the light accelerates both vertically and horizontally, in an amount that grows as you go further South to an incredible 60 degrees of declination change when you reach the South Pole.

Whatever could accelerate light (something that does not exist in real science in a planet like ours) could accelerate it in one dimension, but not in two or three. Even if, after rewriting most of the known physics theories, we do get an accelerated light beam that hides the hull of a boat, that would be a vertical acceleration that does not explain why the declination of the sun at sundown is the same in every part of the Earth on a given day, except very close to the poles.

Ok, I understand your point, so my math needs a bit of work, but the fact remains that for the absurd symmetry of bendy light to hold, you need light (from like a laser source) to bend in a circular manner for the verticle component of its path, and that requires a force that is constantly changing directions just like it says in the diagram. I did not make a mistake, because the only dimensions that matter are forward and vertical. this motion is created by vertical and forward forces, so the horizontal matters not, because it doesn't effect the aforementioned discrepancy.

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2010, 01:12:00 PM »
Parsifal I choose you, please tell me why BL is right and I am wrong, I dare ya

#### Johannes

• Flat Earth Editor
• 2755
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2010, 08:46:56 PM »
Thevoiceofreason, your OP is littered with such nonsense that formulating a response would just be a waste of time.

?

#### Thevoiceofreason

• 1792
• Bendy Truth specialist
##### Re: Axes to FET Part 2
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2010, 09:34:58 PM »
Thevoiceofreason, your OP is littered with such nonsense that formulating a response would just be a waste of time.

not really, you just don't want to admit defeat, so you initiate attack mode.
and how is my original poster littered with such nonsense? I didn't know that I was filled with nonsense.

As for my primary post, it is Thevoiceofreason speaking to you.
look at Einstein's equation for newton's second law.
you'll notice that effective mass is proportional to the force given.

for FET's BL to parallel Real Earth Theory, you need to have a circular path for light and a flat earth, instead of vice versa.
as to why is fairly obvious, if you want maths, I'll work them out tomorrow.

now a circular path for light would be governed by the parametric equation x=rcos(t) and y=rsin(t).
this is where problems arise. given that light travels at c, this constant is equal to the square root of the sum of the derivatives squared (pythagorean's theorem). that said, the acceleration vector will be centripetal and constant since r and c are constants. since the force vector is proportional to the acceleration vector, it to is centripetal.

This is all to say bendy light doesn't work with its given explanation