Horizon and bendy light

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 07:41:17 PM

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?

Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 07:58:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 07:41:17 PM

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?

Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.

I think you should change your name to "ItrollsohardIgorightthroughsupportingFETandcomeouthteothersidemakingitlookalaughingstock".

TK, please watch the low-content posts.

TK, please watch the low-content posts.

I do watch them. I especially watched the one by Rushy, suggesting that satellites wave their arms out of their windows to indicate making a turn, go sailing right past unremarked. I watched that very carefully indeed.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 17, 2012, 08:23:10 PM

TK, please watch the low-content posts.

I do watch them. I especially watched the one by Rushy, suggesting that satellites wave their arms out of their windows to indicate making a turn, go sailing right past unremarked. I watched that very carefully indeed.

We don't have any rules against making the occasional joke, but we do have one against personal attacks.  Your post added nothing to the discussion and was just there to stir up trouble.

Also, this is not the appropriate place to dispute moderation.  Consider yourself warned.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 07:58:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 07:41:17 PM

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?

Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.

First of all, what makes you believe that there were any strong magnets in or around the Bedford Levels.  Secondly, what makes you believe that magnetic fields, no matter how strong, affect the bending of light?

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

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

bending into a sphere perhaps?

bending like say a s

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 08:18:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 07:58:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 07:41:17 PM

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?

Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.

First of all, what makes you believe that there were any strong magnets in or around the Bedford Levels.  Secondly, what makes you believe that magnetic fields, no matter how strong, affect the bending of light?

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 08:38:16 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 08:18:41 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 07:58:20 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 07:41:17 PM

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?

Strong fields which are caused by magnets, located in or around the Bedford Flat.

First of all, what makes you believe that there were any strong magnets in or around the Bedford Levels.  Secondly, what makes you believe that magnetic fields, no matter how strong, affect the bending of light?

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Sorry, but that's another great example of special pleading. (And you sure didn't waste any time giving up on your previous position, did you?)

Sorry, but that's another great example of special pleading. (And you sure didn't waste any time giving up on your previous position, did you?)

Well, it was wrong. No sense in beating a dead horse, hmm? Why are you so quick to call it special pleading? If all science simply discarded an entire theory based on a few pot holes, then we wouldn't get anywhere. It makes perfect sense to change the theory into a workable solution. Kind of like how science made up dark energy to explain what is holding galaxies together rigidly.

Also, what are you sorry for?

Quote from: ClockTower on April 17, 2012, 10:08:04 PM

Sorry, but that's another great example of special pleading. (And you sure didn't waste any time giving up on your previous position, did you?)

Well, it was wrong. No sense in beating a dead horse, hmm? Why are you so quick to call it special pleading? If all science simply discarded an entire theory based on a few pot holes, then we wouldn't get anywhere. It makes perfect sense to change the theory into a workable solution. Kind of like how science made up dark energy to explain what is holding galaxies together rigidly.

Also, what are you sorry for?

There's quite a difference between special pleading and refining a theory. Special pleading requires a lack of criticism of the new condition, which is obviously missing in your post. Science is vigorously critiquing the dark energy hypothesis.

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)? 

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 09:06:23 PM

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?

It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 10:48:44 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 09:06:23 PM

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?

It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.

In other words, no evidence.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 10:48:44 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 09:06:23 PM

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?

It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.

So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 18, 2012, 06:11:47 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 10:48:44 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 09:06:23 PM

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?

It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.

So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.

Looks to me like time passed. Was this post supposed to address some kind of dilemma?

scabs believe it or not some people do like to come here to read interesting data supporting fet. your making it up as you go along though. whats the big deal? you dont believe in fet anyway so why bang on about it?

Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 08:02:47 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 18, 2012, 06:11:47 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 10:48:44 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 09:06:23 PM

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?

It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.

So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.

Looks to me like time passed. Was this post supposed to address some kind of dilemma?

No, just informing other readers of how silly your special pleading is and has been over time.

So again: How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 18, 2012, 08:07:13 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 08:02:47 AM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 18, 2012, 06:11:47 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 17, 2012, 10:48:44 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 17, 2012, 09:06:23 PM

No, no. Nevermind about the magnetic fields. New theory: Light bends due to Celestial Gravitation.

Do you have any evidence to support this new "theory" or is it just another WAG (Wild A** Guess)?

It is a general consensus that gravity can affect photons. Celestial Gravitation may affect these photons profoundly enough to pull them up over time.

So... About this over time idea... How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head? I get: (22 nautical miles) / (the speed of light) = 140 microseconds.

Looks to me like time passed. Was this post supposed to address some kind of dilemma?

No, just informing other readers of how silly your special pleading is and has been over time.

So again: How long do you think it takes an effected photon to travel from a ship's hull (as the ship appears to sink as it goes out to sea) to over the observer's head?

You already did the calculation for that, 140 microseconds. Unless, of course, you meant something else.

Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.

Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.

And please make it work with the question asked in this topic!

Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.

I keep clearing up bendy light and keep being ignored.
Bendy light predicts all light coming in at an angle other than vertical should be displaced upwards in a curve, in order to maintain the appearance of a horizon for things to rise and set behind. Unfortunately for its inventor (Steven "Parsifal" McDoughnut), it also predicts that the angular distances between stars should change as they approach and recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. Hence bendy light is cleared up by filing it in the trash.

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on April 18, 2012, 11:08:26 AM

Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.

I keep clearing up bendy light and keep being ignored.
Bendy light predicts all light coming in at an angle other than vertical should be displaced upwards in a curve, in order to maintain the appearance of a horizon for things to rise and set behind. Unfortunately for its inventor (Steven "Parsifal" McDoughnut), it also predicts that the angular distances between stars should change as they approach and recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. Hence bendy light is cleared up by filing it in the trash.

Actually, I have to disagree. Bendy light matches RET in its current formulation when the Bishop Constant is zero. FEers' current research does not rule out that value.

Of course that value would certainly be great evidence for RET and disproof of FET. So until FEers actually do their homework there's no reason to discuss bendy light further.

Quote from: The Knowledge on April 18, 2012, 01:34:29 PM

Quote from: DDDDAts all folks on April 18, 2012, 11:08:26 AM

Can someone please clear up the idea of 'bendy light' because I've seen nothing that explains the mechanism causing it so far.

I keep clearing up bendy light and keep being ignored.
Bendy light predicts all light coming in at an angle other than vertical should be displaced upwards in a curve, in order to maintain the appearance of a horizon for things to rise and set behind. Unfortunately for its inventor (Steven "Parsifal" McDoughnut), it also predicts that the angular distances between stars should change as they approach and recede from the zenith. This doesn't happen. Hence bendy light is cleared up by filing it in the trash.

Actually, I have to disagree. Bendy light matches RET in its current formulation when the Bishop Constant is zero. FEers' current research does not rule out that value.

Of course that value would certainly be great evidence for RET and disproof of FET. So until FEers actually do their homework there's no reason to discuss bendy light further.

Yes, but if the Bishop Constant is zero then you can rebalance the equation to eliminate the description of bending entirely. Though also, ISWYDT.