Can all Flath Earth Believers at least agree on the existence of Bendy Light?

  • 31 Replies
  • 4221 Views
Do all Flat Earth Believers at least agree that Bendy Light is necessary for a Flat Earth to exist?

I'm taking this from another post I did earlier, but people never seem to get directly to the point. This time I don't want to hear comments about bad grammar, spelling mistakes or semantics. I just want people to either agree with me, or tell me why I'm wrong.

I'm not trying to disprove the Flat Earth hypothesis in this post, I just want to know if you can all agree on this point.

The assumptions

I'm going to assume these parameters for this test:
-The earth is flat.
-The sun travels in a circle above the equator, which has a perimeter of 40000km
-Morning and evening happen when the sun is 1/4 of a circle away from us.
-The sun is approximately 10000km away from us horizontally at those times.
-Light travels in a straight line and radiates equally in all directions from the sun.

Numbers

Horizontal distance of the sun: hDist = 10000km
Angle of the sun above the horizone: angle = arcsin(vDist/totalDist);
Total Distance between the sun and the observer: totalDist = sqrt(hDist*hDist+vDist*vDist)

By this equation, we can assume that these values are correct:
vDist = 174.55065
totalDist = 10001.52328
angle = 1º

Conclusion

In order for the sun to appear 1º above the horizon in the morning, the sun must be 174.55065 km above the Earth at all moments. And remember that this still doesn't account for the sun setting behind the horizon.

There's a big problem with this distance: Between morning and noon, the sun has changed its distance to us by 9826.97km. This would have had an extremely noticeable effect on the size observed, which I don't know how to calculate at the moment. And don't tell me that you can't observe the sun's size. Have you ever tried using smoked glass, or the  black area of an X-Ray photo?

QUESTION:

¿Do you still believe that this earth could possibly be flat without the existence of Bendy Light?

If not: Why?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Do all Flat Earth Believers at least agree that Bendy Light is necessary for a Flat Earth to exist?
No.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Do all Flat Earth Believers at least agree that Bendy Light is necessary for a Flat Earth to exist?
No.
John, doesn't your aetherific edification theory essentially have a similar concept in that aether refracts (for the lack of a better word right now) light from the celestial objects causing them to appear in different locations than where they actually are?
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.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
The aetheric eddification theory is able to explain every phenomenon that doesn't appear to make sense on a flat earth by never being clearly outlined in terms of exactly what it is or how it works. Davis refuses to tell us the details of it, just that "it explains everything". This is no more scientific than saying "God makes it happen".
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Do all Flat Earth Believers at least agree that Bendy Light is necessary for a Flat Earth to exist?
No.
John, doesn't your aetherific edification theory essentially have a similar concept in that aether refracts (for the lack of a better word right now) light from the celestial objects causing them to appear in different locations than where they actually are?
In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
How can it differ mathematically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mathematics to it yet?
How can it differ mechanically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mechanics to it yet?

I'm only trying to establish the fact that light can't travel in a straight path on a flat earth. It must change direction in a significant way.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
How can it differ mathematically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mathematics to it yet?
How can it differ mechanically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mechanics to it yet?

I'm only trying to establish the fact that light can't travel in a straight path on a flat earth. It must change direction in a significant way.
I believe there is a thread here with equations concerning bendy light.

It differs mechanically because it has mechanical explanations where bendy light lacks them.

If that is what you are trying to establish, I believe Tom holds Rowbothams perspective work true.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Lorddave

  • 18171
In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
How can it differ mathematically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mathematics to it yet?
How can it differ mechanically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mechanics to it yet?

I'm only trying to establish the fact that light can't travel in a straight path on a flat earth. It must change direction in a significant way.
I believe there is a thread here with equations concerning bendy light.

It differs mechanically because it has mechanical explanations where bendy light lacks them.

If that is what you are trying to establish, I believe Tom holds Rowbothams perspective work true.

There's one equation without any proof associated with it, supporting evidence, or experimental data.

How can there be a mechanical explanation for anything when there hasn't been any testing to show mechanical movement?
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

flyingmonkey

  • 728
  • Troll trolling Trolls
If that is what you are trying to establish, I believe Tom holds Rowbothams perspective work true.

The problem is Rowbotham assumed the shape of the Earth when he made the theory.
Therefore, for us REers, his theory of a limited perspective can be easily explained as a misunderstanding of data when things got further away when not taking into account the curvature of the Earth (too bad it still doesn't explain why the Sun goes beneath the clouds and horizon)


To be quite honest, I have never seen a line of streetlights shrink in the way that Rowbothams diagrams suggest.

*

Sliver

  • 557
Do all Flat Earth Believers at least agree that Bendy Light is necessary for a Flat Earth to exist?
No.
I wonder why you're not posting in this thread.  I mean, if you believe bendy light is not necessary, maybe you could explain the sunrise/sunset phenomena.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
I do not think that EA theory is correct. In this respect, Mr Mcdonald may be of the devil's party without knowing it.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

I do not think that EA theory is correct. In this respect, Mr Mcdonald may be of the devil's party without knowing it.

I don't know who invented the idea, but whoever did it was doing better for the flat earth society. The math I presented in the original post requires light to bend. Otherwise, the "sunrise" would happen several tens of degrees up in the sky rather than on the horizon.

If you don't believe in some form of bending light, show me why it's wrong. If you can't, you'll either have to acept either round light or a round earth. Which do you prefer?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
I believe that light bends, though it's clear that 'Bendy Light' as currently formulated does not explain the full range of observed phenomona in a consistent manner.
"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

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Do all Flat Earth Believers at least agree that Bendy Light is necessary for a Flat Earth to exist?
No.
I wonder why you're not posting in this thread.  I mean, if you believe bendy light is not necessary, maybe you could explain the sunrise/sunset phenomena.
I didn't see the thread.   I don't have time right this second to post in it, but perhaps later when I have more I will.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
How can it differ mathematically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mathematics to it yet?
I believe there is a thread here with equations concerning bendy light.

Yes. They would be equations for bendy light. How is there a mathematical difference when there are no equations for your version?

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
How can it differ mathematically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mathematics to it yet?
I believe there is a thread here with equations concerning bendy light.

Yes. They would be equations for bendy light. How is there a mathematical difference when there are no equations for your version?
Just because they aren't all published doesn't mean they don't exist.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Just because they aren't all published doesn't mean they don't exist.

How can you show there's a mathematical difference if you won't publish them?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42535
Yes. They would be equations for bendy light. How is there a mathematical difference when there are no equations for your version?
Just because they aren't all published doesn't mean they don't exist.
Even if they were published, that doesn't mean that those equations would be correct.
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.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Just because they aren't all published doesn't mean they don't exist.

How can you show there's a mathematical difference if you won't publish them?
I can't.  I never said I could or more accurately, would.
Yes. They would be equations for bendy light. How is there a mathematical difference when there are no equations for your version?
Just because they aren't all published doesn't mean they don't exist.
Even if they were published, that doesn't mean that those equations would be correct.
Obviously...


The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Are the equations defining the behavior of "bendy light" some kind of a secret?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society

In a crude sense perhaps, but mathematically and mechanically it differs.
How can it differ mathematically from bendy light if bendy light doesn't have any mathematics to it yet?
I believe there is a thread here with equations concerning bendy light.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
You believing something does not make it true.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
You believing something does not make it true.
Use the search function.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
I've tried. I don't believe a complete mathematical description of bendy light (or Electromagnetic Acceleration) exists on these forums.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lorddave

  • 18171
I've tried. I don't believe a complete mathematical description of bendy light (or Electromagnetic Acceleration) exists on these forums.

There's one equation somewhere.  I think it's in the "I'll prove Bendy Light" thread.
It was created by parc. and it's an exponential curve.

It has no mathematical proof associated with it, however, nor any evidence, data, observations, or graph.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
And parsec isn't even the "Bendy Light Specialist". I'd like to see one from someone who has actually put a bit of time into it. I'd also like to see all the "bendy light" believers come together and agree on a single description of how it works, so we could actually test it.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Lorddave

  • 18171
And parsec isn't even the "Bendy Light Specialist". I'd like to see one from someone who has actually put a bit of time into it. I'd also like to see all the "bendy light" believers come together and agree on a single description of how it works, so we could actually test it.

Then you could disprove it.  Which guarantees that it'll never happen.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
How can you show there's a mathematical difference if you won't publish them?
I can't.  I never said I could or more accurately, would.

Well thanks for the confession.

Next time if you can't show something is true don't insist that it is.

*

Lorddave

  • 18171
How can you show there's a mathematical difference if you won't publish them?
I can't.  I never said I could or more accurately, would.

Well thanks for the confession.

Next time if you can't show something is true don't insist that it is.

But that's the whole basis of FET!
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
I've tried. I don't believe a complete mathematical description of bendy light (or Electromagnetic Acceleration) exists on these forums.
I don't imagine a complete mathematical description of any real natural process is possible. 
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.