Possible Explanation for Bendy Light

I'm not; I'm just showing my appreciation.   It's nice to hear people admit they have no proof of something..  Once again, you could've back-peddled, diverted the subject, or any number of things that a troll would've done.

I always answer people's questions, provided they are relevant to the thread. People just seem to have an unfortunate habit of asking the wrong questions.

I've never claimed to have any evidence for bendy light. Why are you acting like this is some kind of victory on your part?

orly? Then all your lame posts on the subject have been a complete waste of time. Allow me to demonstrate your fail.

bendy light causes faraway objects, even at altitude, to be invisible, so such measures are indeed necessary on a Flat Earth

Obviously, this is evidence that light will not bend inside an interferometer, probably due to quantum effects. When you are not making observations with the interferometer, the light will bend.

Quote from: ghazwozza on October 13, 2008, 12:58:11 PM

Serious FE'ers only. Why does the sun set?

Bendy light, though I'd consider evidence for Rowbothian perspective.

.
.
.

You do realise that instead of being a crap internet troll you could have been doing something productive like spilling your seed into yesterdays socks?

All those quotes are just spouting off possible explanations with nothing to back them up, same old same old. To be fair, I'm not sure that he has ever claimed to have evidence to support the bendy light theory.

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

So, no.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

So, no.

Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:35:00 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

So, no.

Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.

Why?

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:36:22 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:35:00 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

So, no.

Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.

Why?

Because it does not make any sense to discuss something as though it were true without any evidence for it.

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:36:58 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:36:22 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:35:00 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

So, no.

Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.

Why?

Because it does not make any sense to discuss something as though it were true without any evidence for it.

The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:38:48 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:36:58 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:36:22 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:35:00 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:33:01 PM

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 08:01:16 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 05:57:11 PM

So can we finally just give this a rest and start talking about other possible causes for all things relating to the horizon?

Are you claiming the way light propagates is not an important factor for things relating to the horizon?

No.

So, no.

Provide some evidence that light bends by some means yet unexplained by modern science (reflection, refraction, curvature of spacetime, etc.) and we can continue discussing that as a cause.

Why?

Because it does not make any sense to discuss something as though it were true without any evidence for it.

The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.

Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun. Can you provide evidence that light bending by unexplained means is a better explanation than the RE model?

The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.

Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun.
[/quote]
Prove it.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:56:06 PM

The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.

Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun.

Prove it.
[/quote]

I'm not here to teach you basic astronomy.

Quote from: parsec on June 11, 2010, 09:16:51 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on June 11, 2010, 08:56:06 PM

The Sun appears to sink below the horizon and rise from the opposite side the next morning.

Which is explained perfectly well by a round earth rotating around the sun.

Prove it.

I'm not here to teach you basic astronomy.
[/quote]
lol.

This thread is a perfect example of how flat guys just ignore anything they find uncomfortable, such as how pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved, and they have just ignored it and continued the thread. Failslam.

pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved

You have done no such thing.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on June 12, 2010, 06:35:36 AM

pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved

You have done no such thing.

Incorrect.

What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?

What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?

Read the FAQ.  For once, the FAQ will answer a question posed by a RE'er.

Quote from: noobtube on June 12, 2010, 11:42:59 AM

What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?

Read the FAQ.  For once, the FAQ will answer a question posed by a RE'er.

The thing about the FAQ is that it is alternate explanations to what we observe.
No evidence there.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on June 12, 2010, 06:35:36 AM

pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved

You have done no such thing.

See? Quod erat demonstrandum.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on June 12, 2010, 06:35:36 AM

pages ago I showed how beeny light was disproved

You have done no such thing.

Please provide evidence for this outlandish claim.

What is the basis for FE? Like what is the core evidence?

What is so difficult about posting in the relevant place? Like what is the core of your incompetence?

What is so difficult about posting in the relevant place? Like what is the core of your incompetence?

Seems relevant to me. He's promoting debate about FET by questioning the provision of core evidence.

Oh I get it your being an internets tough guy for the noob. Carry on.

If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.

If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.

For the love of God, lurk moar.

If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.

This is making some exciting points and could further FE understanding as we know it.

light could travel in an extra dimension matter does not.

Then again the Earth could be sphere. Since you've presented no evidence of more than four dimensions, since you've shown no reason to expect that matter when in the form of light should have access to higher dimensions that it doesn't when in the form of matter, and since the theory of bendy light is internally inconsistent, it would seem that you're doing a good job of convincing us that the Earth is a sphere.

Quote from: wrylie188 on June 13, 2010, 09:09:23 PM

If your a flat earth society member that still beleives in gravity, you are an oximoron that I'm surprised to see knows how to type in web adresses. on of the peices of evidence you use to prove the earth is flat is that gravity pulls things down, and therefore the source of gravity must be somewhere "beneath" the "disk", though in this diagram you clearly show light bending around a massive object. Is the earth not a massive object? If the earth were flat it couldn't possibly have gravity, because that gravity would pull it into an eventual sphere, like it is. so therefore massive objects could not have gravity either because it would conflict with this law, and since we can prove massive objects have gravity, the law is null and void. Therefore you must either state that there is no such thing as gravity the way Albert Einstein knew it, and therefore no bending of light.

For the love of God, lurk moar.

Bravo, just ignore anything that comes too close to your comfort zone. It is Rule #1 for any form of trolling.