bendy light?

just a quick question relay. could i have a link to some research on bendy light in regards to the amount of bend to distance traveled ratio. also if its just sun light that bends or all light produced natural and man made?

Let's see the research backing that up. In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.

yeah i will admit im not that deep on math was looking more for a graph perhaps saying something like after 8000 miles the light has bent 30 degrees for example. just a reference guide not something i need to spend ages on working out all the time.

Let's see the research backing that up. In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.

Give them a break. They think the Earth is flat.

Bendy light is most often brought up for things like the sunset, however in the description of the equation it says

"this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical."

given that in FET sunsets happen when the horizontal distance the light travels is greater than the vertical distance that might be a problem with it.

interesting how iv had no links to any research or experimental evidence yet just a single equation. hmmmmm...........

p.s and apparently a wrong wrong at that.

In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.

Please justify this statement.

For this equation to equal y- a length, the units for the "Bishop constant" are absolutely bizarre. It isn't an empirical equation, as the Wiki states that it hasn't been measured experimentally.

Any explanations on this?

For this equation to equal y- a length, the units for the "Bishop constant" are absolutely bizarre. It isn't an empirical equation, as the Wiki states that it hasn't been measured experimentally.

Any explanations on this?

The units for the Bishop constant are consistent with the definition of the Bishop constant given on that same wiki page.

Quote from: rorius on January 19, 2013, 10:30:23 AM

For this equation to equal y- a length, the units for the "Bishop constant" are absolutely bizarre. It isn't an empirical equation, as the Wiki states that it hasn't been measured experimentally.

Any explanations on this?

The units for the Bishop constant are consistent with the definition of the Bishop constant given on that same wiki page.

So they are- my mistake for being too quick on that one.

There still seems to be a lot of pseudo-science in the description though, and I'd love to see some background.

How can you have an empirical equation for an unmeasured quantity? That's sort of what empirical means.

I'm always amazed that RErs always pick out the most simple of our theories and ignore the really difficult stuff.

You can see in the video below, some guy explaining bendy light in a Flat Earth introduction.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">flat earth documentary
^That vid should probably be in the FAQ.

Oh course the really meaty discussion comes when you realise that in order to have bendy light, you must also have bendy darkness.

touche. The theorists might consider the idea that by inserting a mass term into the electromagnetic lagrangian one could create an effective massive photon that might be able to bend in an appropriate field. Although I'm sure that's all been considered.

If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.

If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.

Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2013, 02:59:54 PM

If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.

Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.

He's got you there. That's a pretty revolutionary video, it's not every day you realize you live in a black hole.

Quote from: Thork on January 19, 2013, 03:02:39 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2013, 02:59:54 PM

If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.

Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.

He's got you there. That's a pretty revolutionary video, it's not every day you realize you live in a black hole.

Thork didn't realise that, because he is a layman.

Quote from: bowler on January 19, 2013, 03:07:54 PM

Quote from: Thork on January 19, 2013, 03:02:39 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2013, 02:59:54 PM

If plumb bob guy is really a scientist, I suspect his credentials are bogus. Since a layman like me can easily tell that for the gravitational field of the earth to be so strong as to warp light around like that, we'd be unable to move about on the surface - we'd be squashed flat.
Ridiculous.

Like you say, he is a scientist and you are a layman.

He's got you there. That's a pretty revolutionary video, it's not every day you realize you live in a black hole.

Thork didn't realise that, because he is a layman.

No, I am an expert on earth's shape.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 15, 2013, 11:58:08 AM

In the mean time, there's an error in the equation - the right hand side should be a 4th root, not a 3rd.

Please justify this statement.

Your label says bendy light specialist. If that's so, then it should be obvious to you that the equation as printed there will give the incorrect rate of curvature, regardless of the value of the Bishop constant. I assume you understand what each part of the equation relates to in real tems?

How can you have an empirical equation for an unmeasured quantity? That's sort of what empirical means.

What? Empirical means derived from experimentation- So an empirical equation is essentially an educated "best guess" to fit with a set of results. Or measurements.

I'm always amazed that RErs always pick out the most simple of our theories and ignore the really difficult stuff.

I'm struggling to find any "difficult stuff"- eg Tom Bishop's proof behind this bendy light equation?

Quote from: bowler on January 19, 2013, 02:06:55 PM

How can you have an empirical equation for an unmeasured quantity? That's sort of what empirical means.

What? Empirical means derived from experimentation- So an empirical equation is essentially an educated "best guess" to fit with a set of results. Or measurements.

Yes - thats what I said. The equation doesn't really mean anything. I'm not sure whether the odd powers are there to give 'beta' units of acceleration or to scale the huge value of c^2 down to an everyday number or what. Either way it's a slightly odd equation.

I thought light moved in straight lines?  We proved it in class ages ago! 

Yes - thats what I said. The equation doesn't really mean anything. I'm not sure whether the odd powers are there to give 'beta' units of acceleration or to scale the huge value of c^2 down to an everyday number or what. Either way it's a slightly odd equation.

The units for the Bishop constant are correct as far as the claim that it's an acceleration (Length/Time^2) but that's about it...

I'd love to see the background for this, but unfortunately I just don't think there is any & I can only assume it's made up. It also appears that if x is unknown, there is more than one possible solution.

To show that light travels in straight lines

Procedure
1. Place three identical cards with a small hole in each about 10 cm apart.
2. Arrange them so that the holes are in a straight line.
3. Look through the holes to see the light.
4. Move one of the cards slightly to one side.

Result
The light can only be seem when the cards are in a straight line.

Conclusion
Light travels in straight lines






Have you guys not done this?

To show that light travels in straight lines

Procedure
1. Place three identical cards with a small hole in each about 10 cm apart.
2. Arrange them so that the holes are in a straight line.
3. Look through the holes to see the light.
4. Move one of the cards slightly to one side.

Result
The light can only be seem when the cards are in a straight line.

Conclusion
Light travels in straight lines






Have you guys not done this?

They normally protest the Society does not have the funds for experiments.

Too short a distance to be conclusive.

Too short a distance to be conclusive.

Hardly, that's just dodging the results. If it was bendy, then the distance required to show this would have to be so big, it'd be like how people treat the mass of electrons. Not really worth our time.

Over that distance the human eye wouldn't detect such a bend. The bendy light in question requires an experiment over a few miles to get conclusive results. Setting up such an experiment for normal folk like me and you would be impossible.

Over that distance the human eye wouldn't detect such a bend. The bendy light in question requires an experiment over a few miles to get conclusive results. Setting up such an experiment for normal folk like me and you would be impossible.

I disagree with you, but I suppose neither of us should say anything until we can test it, huh?