Horizon and bendy light

Imagine yourself in a ship at sea, with only water to be seen around.

You'll notice that the horizon around you forms a circle and that the horizon is at the same distance wherever you look.

You'll notice also that whatever the altitude of the sun, the horizon is exactly at the same distance.

How is that coherent with bendy light?

How can you judge the comparative distance of the horizon with just your eyes?

How can you judge the comparative distance of the horizon with just your eyes?

How can you judge the flatness of the earth with just your eyes?

I hold straight edges up to the horizon or take pictures with trusted cameras and study them.

Do you do this from elevations where the curvature is predicted to be visible on the horizon?

I do it from sea level just like the OP's thought experiment. Why do RE'ers have to always chance the conditions of things until it's such a warped issue that they can scream, "RE Victory!!!" over they logic spaghetti they just boiled?  It's plain dishonest.

I'm not changing the conditions with my questions.  You're the one putting doubt on using your eyes to make measurements, which is ironic considering that that's all FET has.

I'd say this would go a lot better if we had something else in the water for reference.  Ships, buoys, etc.  Something hidden behind the horizon will become visible once it expands out with increased elevation.

But I suppose the OP is trying to make a different point?  Do any FEers still even hold to bendy light?

Imagine yourself in a ship at sea, with only water to be seen around.

You'll notice that the horizon around you forms a circle and that the horizon is at the same distance wherever you look.

You'll notice also that whatever the altitude of the sun, the horizon is exactly at the same distance.

How is that coherent with bendy light?

You are making the mistake that bendy light is still on the table as a FE theory. It was disproved a couple of years ago by invariance of angular distance between stars.

You are making the mistake that bendy light is still on the table as a FE theory. It was disproved a couple of years ago by invariance of angular distance between stars.

Actually, you are making the mistake of thinking that bendy light was ever developed enough for there to be something to disprove in the first place. 

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 16, 2012, 04:29:59 PM

You are making the mistake that bendy light is still on the table as a FE theory. It was disproved a couple of years ago by invariance of angular distance between stars.

Actually, you are making the mistake of thinking that bendy light was ever developed enough for there to be something to disprove in the first place.

Lol yeah, it really never went much further than "light bends".

Electromagnetic Acceleration.

Good point, Irushwithscvs, that changes everything!

Good point, Irushwithscvs, that changes everything!

It really does, when you think about it. If we change "Observation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Entanglement on Supraquantum Structures by Induction Through Nonlinear Transuranic Crystal of Extremely Long Wavelength (ELW) Pulse from Mode-Locked Source Array" to "recording some waves do neat stuff in a gem" it just isn't the same, is it?

So please, do us all a favor and explain the rich intricacies of electromagnetic acceleration and why it isn't a failed theory.

1. If you are at sea and if you approach shores, you can know exactly at what distance they are when you see them (if you have a GPS and a good map), so it's easily proven that the horizon is exactly at the same distance wherever you look.

2. Water is always flat (let's discard waves for a while), what other explaination would be?

Electromagnetic Acceleration.

We are defeated in debate! 

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 16, 2012, 10:42:54 PM

Electromagnetic Acceleration.

We are defeated in debate! 

Stating the obvious is something you seem to do a lot lately.

Still no FET explaination?

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 17, 2012, 12:05:07 PM

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted.  Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 17, 2012, 12:05:07 PM

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted.  Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.

It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 17, 2012, 12:05:07 PM

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

I don't see the explaination!

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 17, 2012, 12:05:07 PM

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

Piling on the wisdom of markjo... Nope.

Bendy light does not address the OP. The mathematical foundation is useless since the "Bishop Constant" is unknown and it applies to only one very special condition. Would you care to justify your outlandish claim now?

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 01:03:31 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 17, 2012, 12:05:07 PM

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted.  Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.

It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 01:11:45 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 01:03:31 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 12:54:43 PM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 17, 2012, 12:05:07 PM

Still no FET explaination?

The situation you described adheres to Electromagnetic Acceleration. I don't see the dilemma.

The dilemma is that Electromagnetic Acceleration (bendy light) is not developed fully enough to make any predictions so saying that any situation adheres to EA is premature and unwarranted.  Not to mention the fact that EAT conflicts with the notion that the earth is flat because it appears flat.

It does not. You see light, or you don't. Simply because the light changed locations does not mean you will perceive it to bend. You see a horizon because the light isn't hitting your eyes anymore. Your eyes can't detect what isn't there. You end up with a blurry horizon where you see light refracted by air.

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Correct.

Furthermore, the amount of bending of light is proportional to the angle it travels towards the viewer at in order to work, with vertical being no bending and horizontal being maximum bending. This predicts that the angular distance between stars should change significantly as they approach or recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. EAT disproved by virtue of not producing the one thing it is capable of predicting.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 03:55:48 PM

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces

In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles.  The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer.  If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight.  Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon.  This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 04:03:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 03:55:48 PM

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces

In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles.  The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer.  If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight.  Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon.  This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.

Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 04:11:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 04:03:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 03:55:48 PM

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces

In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles.  The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer.  If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight.  Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon.  This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.

Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.

What strong magnetic fields are you referring to? 

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 04:11:22 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 04:03:09 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 03:55:48 PM

Parallax (A.K.A. Samuel Birley Rowbotham proved beyond all doubt at the Bedford Levels that the earth is flat because it appears flat.  In order for this observation to work, light must travel in a straight line.  This conflicts with EAT (bendy light).

Incorrect. Bending light =/= Bending surfaces

In the BLE, the observer is about 18 inches above the water watching a rowboat travel 6 miles.  The rays of light from the rowboat must travel parallel to the surface of the water in order to be seen by the observer.  If the surface of the water is flat, then the light rays must be traveling straight.  Any bending of the light rays would have caused the rowboat to appear to sink below the horizon.  This did not happen, therefore light does not bend.

Strong magnetic fields keep the light from bending as much as it normally would.

I love this. He's both arguing that light bends and that light does not bend, and if I point out that this is blatant (and indeed not very good) trolling, I'll get a slap.
Let's hope some newbies come in and read this thread before deciding whether it's worth signing up.