Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

This model has yet to be explained,



For the position of the sun to be what it is on a flat earth, light has to bend like this. Why does it do this? What are the mathematical formulas to describe the bending of light like this? What proof do you have that it bends like this? Longitude and latitude obviously has to enter into the formula somewhere. Why? Why does longitude and latitude affect the bending of light?

Here is a further explanation of the same model. This model does not work. If it does, tell me how it works.

Well as I have learned in another thread, either I was lied to, or the earth has grossly non euclidean coordinates. Apparently the south rim has the same circumference of the north rim. as in 80 N and 80 S. Is this correct Tom Bishop?

Quote

My point is that there was no enlarging to begin with.  What you see in the photograph is glare.  Not the actual angular size of the headlight.

The headlights are clearly enlarged in the photograph. Any child of five could attest to this.

That picture is from a low resolution digital camera.  The glare from the headlights will make them look bigger.  Also, the closer the cars get to the camera, the less the lights are pointed at it in that particular photo due to it's high and off center point of view, therefore there is less glare for the camera to pick up from the closer cars, while the headlights of the more distant cars look bigger because they are pointed more directly at the camera. 

Out where I live I often drive along straight stretches of 1-3 miles while a car approaches from the other end at night.  The headlights (glare and all) still look tiny and grow larger the closer we get.  Anybody who drives at night could attest to this.

Sigh...

Sigh...

I don't appreciate your lack of consideration for the work he put into understanding and quantifying YOUR theories.

I already proved awhile ago that, during solstices, half of the (FE, antarctica-ice-wall) map would have to be lit up by the Sun at once using sunrise/sunset times.

I don't appreciate your lack of consideration for the work he put into understanding and quantifying YOUR theories.

What? He's not trying to understand them. He's making shit up on the spot, claiming that his random ideas are an integrated part of FET, and then disproves himself, thinking that this somehow disproves FET. He's pulled that troll card many times by now. No one cares much anymore.
Also, why do I care about your appreciation? Well, I don't, but why do you think I should care?

Quote from: Puttah on February 18, 2011, 03:47:19 PM

I don't appreciate your lack of consideration for the work he put into understanding and quantifying YOUR theories.

What? He's not trying to understand them. He's making shit up on the spot, claiming that his random ideas are an integrated part of FET, and then disproves himself, thinking that this somehow disproves FET. He's pulled that troll card many times by now. No one cares much anymore.
Also, why do I care about your appreciation? Well, I don't, but why do you think I should care?

There we go. This explanation helps your case much more than that trolling image. Is there a thread on a discussion about this? Because if what silver says is true that the model hasn't been explained, then it needs to be.

I don't care if it bothers you or not, it's just not an appealing quality in someone to be a trolling jerk.

Sigh...

That doesn't look much like a spotlight to me.

You are forgetting one thing, Mr. Cynic.

Sigh...

You're ability to understand logic has reached an all new low today.

Perhaps you'd explain how sunlight seems to snake around the equator in the way it does.
or how it cuts of at the semi circle. And if you don't understand that a spotlight shines on a circle, and that a sphere will shine on the plane, I have no help for you. and BL doesn't count. You can't just say herp derp it works because if it didn't our theory wouldn't work, and therefore I don't have to show you how or why it works. At least put effort into it man.

You're ability to understand logic has reached an all new low today.

No. You are ability to understand logic has reached an all new low today. Also, you're not American. Americans speak good English.

Perhaps you'd explain how sunlight seems to snake around the equator in the way it does.

It doesn't. Have you even looked at the picture?

or how it cuts of at the semi circle.

It does not do that.

And if you don't understand that a spotlight shines on a circle

I do understand that. What you see (well, you obviously don't see it considering this moronic rant of yours) is part of a circle. Observe the bit around the equator. It's curved. Yes. Curved.

I have no help for you.

Sadly, you are the one who needs help here. Luckily, I can offer some! I'll happily send you my old physics textbooks if only you pay the postage. They'll help you stay in character as a "Caltech student" (lol).

You can't just say herp derp it works because if it didn't our theory wouldn't work, and therefore I don't have to show you how or why it works. At least put effort into it man.

Okay, it would seem you are dumb. Perhaps if I show you a less cropped version of this picture you will notice something...
http://pizzargh.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/light.png

EDIT: I'll give you credit for one thing, though. You've managed to rally a whole pack of noobs and convince them that large circles can't feasibly exist.

In other words, Pizzaplanet's trolling has reached an all-time low today. I'm actually at a loss for words, this is almost at Parsifal's level. Guys?

But let's pretend I take you seriously for a second. How does that all-new exotic model of yours explain the varying positions of the sun all day, for example as in some places of Earth it appears to be overhead. Surely the position of the sun in that model would make the sun appear to be in the same spot for everybody on Earth at the same time. What makes it cut off at the equator. Am I hearing the catch-all here? Bendy light? Yes, now let's move on to my actual question which you repeatedly have still failed to answer, why does light bend and what are its exact properties?

How does that all-new exotic model of yours explain the varying positions of the sun all day, for example as in some places of Earth it appears to be overhead.

The Sun circles around the Earth. I thought that much should be obvious to anyone with a primary education. Otherwise, you'd have permanent daytime on one hemiplane and nighttime on the other. Did I really need to tell you this?

Surely the position of the sun in that model would make the sun appear to be in the same spot for everybody on Earth at the same time.

It wouldn't. However, I am curious what exactly makes you fallaciously jump into the senseless conclusion that this is even feasibly possible for this model.

What makes it cut off at the equator.

It doesn't "cut off" at the equator. Have you looked at my diagrams? It's a large spotlight, as opposed to a small spotlight.
Let's have a look at that childish drawing of yours:

Why does the "real" lit area cut off like that?

Am I hearing the catch-all here? Bendy light?

Of course not. That would be retarded. Bendy light does essentially nothing to the shape of the lit area, only to its magnitude and distribution of light, which are completely unrelated to this.

Yes, now let's move on to my actual question which you repeatedly have still failed to answer, why does light bend and what are its exact properties?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Optics
http://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Electromagnetic+Accelerator

Perhaps booze would alleviate the situation?

The only way I can make sense of your arguments Pizzaplanet, is if you're assuming the Earth is round, which would indeed make you right. Is that what you're doing?

Also, I think you've perhaps grossly misunderstood the model I made. This is a model I made out from my understanding of the FET bendy light and how it had been explained to me. I am asking you people to make sense of the problem inherent in that model. That is, how the suns light reaches half of the Earth at the same time (the required effect), yet in the bendy light model with a spotlight sun and light that acts in the manner of a concave cylinder bending outwards, it's actual area of illumination would be round (the actual effect). I am asking you to explain why light bends in such a weird fashion.

Additionally, in the typical FE model, the sun orbits directly above the Earth. Not far away, or over what you people tend to call the "outlands". It seems you are now diverging from this model that you yourself also seem to support in that other thread you made. Would you care to explain this?



Your own convictions seem to be remarkably fluid, always changing to fit into whatever thread you're arguing in. All I'm asking for is some consistency.

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:11:04 PM

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

Your own convictions seem to be remarkably fluid, always changing to fit into whatever thread you're arguing in. All I'm asking for is some consistency.

My model is perfectly consistent with itself and reality. The perceived position of the Sun is exactly where you'd expect it to be.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 18, 2011, 04:29:14 PM

You're ability to understand logic has reached an all new low today.

No. You are ability to understand logic has reached an all new low today. Also, you're not American. Americans speak good English.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 18, 2011, 04:29:14 PM

Perhaps you'd explain how sunlight seems to snake around the equator in the way it does.

It doesn't. Have you even looked at the picture?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 18, 2011, 04:29:14 PM

or how it cuts of at the semi circle.

It does not do that.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 18, 2011, 04:29:14 PM

And if you don't understand that a spotlight shines on a circle

I do understand that. What you see (well, you obviously don't see it considering this moronic rant of yours) is part of a circle. Observe the bit around the equator. It's curved. Yes. Curved.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 18, 2011, 04:29:14 PM

I have no help for you.

Sadly, you are the one who needs help here. Luckily, I can offer some! I'll happily send you my old physics textbooks if only you pay the postage. They'll help you stay in character as a "Caltech student" (lol).

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 18, 2011, 04:29:14 PM

You can't just say herp derp it works because if it didn't our theory wouldn't work, and therefore I don't have to show you how or why it works. At least put effort into it man.

Okay, it would seem you are dumb. Perhaps if I show you a less cropped version of this picture you will notice something...
http://pizzargh.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/light.png

EDIT: I'll give you credit for one thing, though. You've managed to rally a whole pack of noobs and convince them that large circles can't feasibly exist.

A whole newer low today!

Let me disabuse you,

My diagram is correct. it assumes that on the equinox, on the equator the sun is always east or west, never seen to the north or south. From this, I find that the Sun snakes around the equator. The vector pattern of a spotlight, would be radial in nature, it wouldn't curve to be vertical on the equator. Again way to say something is wrong without saying why its wrong.

And your next idea, is even worse, in that it goes against several key observations. Firstly, where is the center of that circle pray tell me? It would imply that the sun is way over the earth, when in fact, it should be over the equator. Also that's not an un-cropped photo. The original photo, not yours, has little deviation from that meridian line, but in your photo, the circle is clearly above the right side of the meridian. Nice try though.

And what's with the sudden attempt at character assassination? Were you rejected from Caltech? I assure you that whatever college you attend/attended is no less honorable than the California Institute of Technology.


So as a summary, ITT:PP lies, throws a volley of personal attacks, and is still wrong, very wrong.

In other words, Pizzaplanet's trolling has reached an all-time low today. I'm actually at a loss for words, this is almost at Parsifal's level. Guys?

But let's pretend I take you seriously for a second. How does that all-new exotic model of yours explain the varying positions of the sun all day, for example as in some places of Earth it appears to be overhead. Surely the position of the sun in that model would make the sun appear to be in the same spot for everybody on Earth at the same time. What makes it cut off at the equator. Am I hearing the catch-all here? Bendy light? Yes, now let's move on to my actual question which you repeatedly have still failed to answer, why does light bend and what are its exact properties?

Parsifal was/is a very smart poster. He actually told you why you were wrong, or how you could be wrong. PP is just riding the Parsifal train and screaming bendy light along with personal attacks at every turn.

Quote from: Puttah on February 19, 2011, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:11:04 PM

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

How does he do this? His map is the FE map.

Quote from: silver on February 19, 2011, 02:54:15 AM

Your own convictions seem to be remarkably fluid, always changing to fit into whatever thread you're arguing in. All I'm asking for is some consistency.

My model is perfectly consistent with itself and reality. The perceived position of the Sun is exactly where you'd expect it to be.

Have you directly observed your model? I assume you've measured the "bend" of the circle that the sun casts?

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on February 19, 2011, 06:04:32 PM

Quote from: silver on February 19, 2011, 02:54:15 AM

Your own convictions seem to be remarkably fluid, always changing to fit into whatever thread you're arguing in. All I'm asking for is some consistency.

My model is perfectly consistent with itself and reality. The perceived position of the Sun is exactly where you'd expect it to be.

Have you directly observed your model? I assume you've measured the "bend" of the circle that the sun casts?

If the circle is large enough, the bend is imperceptible. Oh and bendy light. atmospheric distortion. etc.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:53:57 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 19, 2011, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:11:04 PM

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

How does he do this? His map is the FE map.

He's coloring the FE map with sunlight area as if the earth were a globe. It's not a globe.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 07:12:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:53:57 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 19, 2011, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:11:04 PM

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

How does he do this? His map is the FE map.

He's coloring the FE map with sunlight area as if the earth were a globe. It's not a globe.

So how should the day night terminator be colored? should it be a circle?

So how should the day night terminator be colored? should it be a circle?

The sun's area of light upon the earth is always a circle. However, the size of that circle is not constant. The sun moves up and down throughout the year, closer and farther from the earth, resulting in bigger and smaller spots of light upon the earth.

Direct evidence of the sun's constant changing of altitude throughout the year, as well as its north-south yearly movement, can be found by studying its analemma.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 10:36:03 PM

So how should the day night terminator be colored? should it be a circle?

The sun's area of light upon the earth is always a circle. However, the size of that circle is not constant. The sun moves up and down throughout the year, closer and farther from the earth, resulting in bigger and smaller spots of light upon the earth.

Direct evidence of the sun's constant changing of altitude throughout the year, as well as its north-south yearly movement, can be found by studying its analemma.

As Silver has shown in his diagram, a spotlight on a flat Earth isn't sufficient to illuminate all the locations that are illuminated during the day on a Round Earth. Can you explain this?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 07:12:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:53:57 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 19, 2011, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:11:04 PM

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

How does he do this? His map is the FE map.

He's coloring the FE map with sunlight area as if the earth were a globe. It's not a globe.

No, in the model I made the Earth is flat. The "required" field is where light is supposed to be, because that's where it is in real life. The "actual" field is where a spot/floodlight sun would actually reach with the mechanics FE has described. All I am doing is asking you to explain this discrepancy.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 10:25:34 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on February 19, 2011, 07:12:04 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:53:57 PM

Quote from: Puttah on February 19, 2011, 05:27:05 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 19, 2011, 05:11:04 PM

Pizza Planet is assuming that the earth is a globe in his drawing.

It's not.

I think many of us are more interested in your response to silver's queries.

My mistake. That should have said Silver, not Pizza Planet. That's Silver's drawing. Pizza Planet just reposted it.

Silver is making the fundamental assumption that the earth is a globe in his illustration.

It's not.

How does he do this? His map is the FE map.

He's coloring the FE map with sunlight area as if the earth were a globe. It's not a globe.

No, in the model I made the Earth is flat. The "required" field is where light is supposed to be, because that's where it is in real life. The "actual" field is where a spot/floodlight sun would actually reach with the mechanics FE has described. All I am doing is asking you to explain this discrepancy.

What you have is a Flat Model of the round earth extrapolated in a projection.  This in no way guarantees that it actually represents the actual Flat Earth - because there are no convenient maps that depict it.  In fact some threads depict the flat earth as a continually enveloping fractal like geometry.  Before you argue about how the sunlight affects the Flat Earth - pin them to an actual map.

If they make one.

Berny
If........