bendy light?

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?

I asked you to justify your claim. Are you able to do this or not?

To show that light travels in straight lines

[snip]

Have you guys not done this?

What is the uncertainty in the measured curvature of light in this experiment?

Quote from: squevil on January 19, 2013, 05:12:34 PM

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?

what are you disagreeing with exactly?

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.

Doesn't work with a laser then? Seen one of those shining from Big Ben actually- didn't appear to bend.

Edit: Should probably say the laser light was visible for a long distance

Doesn't work with a laser then? Seen one of those shining from Big Ben actually- didn't appear to bend.

Edit: Should probably say the laser light was visible for a long distance

Bear in mind that the light returning to your eyes is also bending. If you are close to the laser, it will curve back along approximately the same path as the laser itself, and the effect will be the appearance of a straight line.

i still don't understand the premise of the equation. its not based on theory and its not based on experiment. what is it based on? it just just seems to an equation for a curve which can be achieved. also there are three vector quantities there so the expression is at best incomplete

i still don't understand the premise of the equation. its not based on theory and its not based on experiment. what is it based on? it just just seems to an equation for a curve which can be achieved. also there are three vector quantities there so the expression is at best incomplete

It is based on theory. I started out with a basic premise -- that the magnitude of the force on a light ray is constant for a horizontal ray, and for any given light ray can be determined as the vertical component of that constant perpendicular to the ray, directed upwards -- and arrived at the equation on the wiki as an approximation by cancelling certain terms in a much longer equation that become near-equal for large values of x.

Unfortunately, I have since lost the intermediate working, but I'm sure that given time I could reproduce it given the simplicity of the premise.

light has no mass a classical force does not acceleeate light, and i thought x and y were orthogonal.

Quote from: rorius on January 20, 2013, 12:57:38 AM

Doesn't work with a laser then? Seen one of those shining from Big Ben actually- didn't appear to bend.

Edit: Should probably say the laser light was visible for a long distance

Bear in mind that the light returning to your eyes is also bending. If you are close to the laser, it will curve back along approximately the same path as the laser itself, and the effect will be the appearance of a straight line.

That's a a silly explanation to be honest. Bendy light that appears straight in this situation, but curved when another situation calls for it? How would you determine if light is going to "appear" straight or curved?

Also, wouldn't this bendy light equation completely invalidate the much loved "Bedford Level Experiment"? I assume the light appears straight in the results that show a flat earth, but bendy when it shows a convex or concave surface?

I started out with a basic premise -- that the magnitude of the force on a light ray is constant for a horizontal ray

Force caused by what?

directed upwards

The equation allows both negative & positive values of x to be true for one value of y- if 16 = x^4, x could be -2 or 2. Hence it does not show the direction of the "bend".

light has no mass a classical force does not acceleeate light

You are correct, of course. I erred in my previous post; I meant to say acceleration, not force.

and i thought x and y were orthogonal.

They are. If the work requires further explanation, please ask me to clarify; it has been some time since I worked on it, so I have undoubtedly forgotten to include parts in my explanation here.

That's a a silly explanation to be honest. Bendy light that appears straight in this situation, but curved when another situation calls for it?

I don't see what is silly about it. It simply follows from the existing bendy light hypothesis.

How would you determine if light is going to "appear" straight or curved?

You would need to consider the curvature not only of the ray being observed, but of the path light takes from that ray to the observer.

Also, wouldn't this bendy light equation completely invalidate the much loved "Bedford Level Experiment"? I assume the light appears straight in the results that show a flat earth, but bendy when it shows a convex or concave surface?

The Bedford Level Experiment and bendy light are part of alternative Flat Earth models. Most bendy light supporters are in agreement with REers on the validity (or lack thereof) of Rowbotham's work.

Force caused by what?

Dark Energy, a hypothetical universal phenomenon that creates the UA as well as bendy light.

The equation allows both negative & positive values of x to be true for one value of y- if 16 = x^4, x could be -2 or 2. Hence it does not show the direction of the "bend".

Incorrect. For both possible values of x, the resulting bend will be directed upward, as given by d²y/dx².

Quote from: bowler on January 20, 2013, 02:04:10 AM

light has no mass a classical force does not acceleeate light

You are correct, of course. I erred in my previous post; I meant to say acceleration, not force.

An acceleration must be accompanied by a force, does it not?

Dark Energy, a hypothetical universal phenomenon that creates the UA as well as bendy light.

Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?

Incorrect. For both possible values of x, the resulting bend will be directed upward, as given by d2y/dx2.

I am unsure how you have concluded this & as you say, there is much needed further explanation.

Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?

The double standards are truly jaw-dropping.

Quote from: rorius on January 20, 2013, 03:18:34 AM

Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?

The double standards are truly jaw-dropping.

It's a real shame that so far on this forum, Parfisal is the first "FE'er" to actually engage in a somewhat serious scientific argument & attempt to back up his views, which makes for an interesting debate.

Not just make meaningless, smart-ass remarks.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 19, 2013, 04:02:37 PM

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?

I asked you to justify your claim. Are you able to do this or not?

I just did. Since it now appears you wrote the equation, if you can't understand why it's a problem, then you don't understand the maths you're working with. The right side of the equation produces a figure that is too large, under all circumstances, to be correct for the rate of curvature needed to produce a curve on the light ray comparable to the curve of the earth's surface in RET. Changing the 3rd root to a 4th corrects this by making all figures smaller. Sorry Parsifal, but as the person who wrote the equation, you should be able to see why it's a problem and where the error lies. I don't need to justify it any more than if you'd written 2+2=5 and I said no, the answer's 4.

An acceleration must be accompanied by a force, does it not?

As bowler pointed out, light is massless. Therefore, acceleration of a light ray would be caused by something outside our experience, as a conventional force would not do the trick.

Dark matter & energy are just that. Totally hypothetical phenomenons to fill the gaps in a cosmological model & very little is known about it. Why do you believe you can readily apply it here?

The concept of Dark Energy in FET is distinct from that in RET. They are not the same thing.

In FET, Dark Energy is simply a hypothetical and as yet unexplained phenomenon used to explain Universal Acceleration and bendy light. That is, we are not "applying" anything. We begin with the supposition that light moves in a curved path, and we then use mathematics to see what the world would be like if that were true. A thought experiment of sorts, much like the way relativity started out.

"Dark Energy" is simply the label we give to the unknown cause of this curvature.

Quote

Incorrect. For both possible values of x, the resulting bend will be directed upward, as given by d2y/dx2.

I am unsure how you have concluded this & as you say, there is much needed further explanation.

The curvature of a graph is given by its concavity, which is given by the second derivative of the equation, as I stated. It is fairly simple calculus; I'm not sure what requires further explanation.

You may be confusing gradient with concavity, which seems to be a common error. Light can be directed down but still bending up.

I just did. Since it now appears you wrote the equation, if you can't understand why it's a problem, then you don't understand the maths you're working with. The right side of the equation produces a figure that is too large, under all circumstances, to be correct for the rate of curvature needed to produce a curve on the light ray comparable to the curve of the earth's surface in RET. Changing the 3rd root to a 4th corrects this by making all figures smaller. Sorry Parsifal, but as the person who wrote the equation, you should be able to see why it's a problem and where the error lies. I don't need to justify it any more than if you'd written 2+2=5 and I said no, the answer's 4.

Replacing the third root with a fourth root in that equation produces a straight line path for light, thus making it entirely irrelevant to bendy light. I had initially assumed you knew this and were trying to make a point of it, but I now see that I gave your intellect too much credit.

Feel free to return to this discussion once you have gained a rudimentary understanding of calculus.

The curvature of a graph is given by its concavity, which is given by the second derivative of the equation, as I stated. It is fairly simple calculus; I'm not sure what requires further explanation.

You may be confusing gradient with concavity, which seems to be a common error. Light can be directed down but still bending up.

But which direction is "up"? The only information available is that it is perpendicular to the x-direction.

I must admit your points have been interesting to read Parsifal, and if you ever get round to looking at the working behind this idea it would be great to see it.

Unfortunately, to my mind, I do think there are some very flawed concepts behind this idea- the fact that it involves an acceleration with no force- which throws Newtonian principles out the window, and also as you say, the cause of the curvature is unknown & for me, unobserved.

But which direction is "up"? The only information available is that it is perpendicular to the x-direction.

"Up" may be defined as the direction of fastest increasing gravitational potential. More fundamentally, it is the direction in which Dark Energy acts. It is the direction which we call "up" in common parlance.

In terms of that equation, "up" is the direction of fastest increasing y.

I must admit your points have been interesting to read Parsifal, and if you ever get round to looking at the working behind this idea it would be great to see it.

As I recall, it involved four or five two-sided pages of working, and in my usual style it would have been impossible for anybody else to follow, as I do my working wherever there happens to be space on the page and track what things mean in my head. Even if I could find it again, I would likely not understand it now.

I would need to work out the steps again and then document them in a human-friendly form, and I am a lot busier these days than I was when I did this three and a half years ago.

Unfortunately, to my mind, I do think there are some very flawed concepts behind this idea- the fact that it involves an acceleration with no force- which throws Newtonian principles out the window, and also as you say, the cause of the curvature is unknown & for me, unobserved.

It is a very incomplete hypothesis, yes. I have never claimed it to be solid or thoroughly explored, only interesting.

Right in classical physics as I'm sure everyone knows
F = ma = m(dv/dt) or more importantly in term of momentum (p)
F = dp/dt.
notice the above was in terms of velocity, not speed.

Okay so we know the photon has no rest mass and therefore from special relativity is constrained to travel at the speed of light. This is why light travels in a straight line, it's not an experimental fact it follows directly from special relativity, you cannot apply a classical force to light and thus you cannot accelerate it. In fact it turns out all light can do is scatter off of charged particles.

The equation in the wiki may or may not hold for a massive particle. I don't really follow it's meaning beyond the fact you get a curve it you plot it as y = f(x). At least some of its terms should probably be explicit functions of time and some vectors appear to have become scalar without motivation. However without some re-working of electrodynamics it's hard to see how light can bend in the mechanical framework of physics - this was why I suggested an additional mass term in the electrodynamic lagrangian although this brings it's own problems.

Okay so we know the photon has no rest mass and therefore from special relativity is constrained to travel at the speed of light. This is why light travels in a straight line, it's not an experimental fact it follows directly from special relativity, you cannot apply a classical force to light and thus you cannot accelerate it. In fact it turns out all light can do is scatter off of charged particles.

Yes, hence the unknownness of Dark Energy. The cause of the acceleration is not well-established.

To clarify, the speed of the light ray is not altered, only its direction.

The equation in the wiki may or may not hold for a massive particle. I don't really follow it's meaning beyond the fact you get a curve it you plot it as y = f(x).

That is its only meaning. It is simply an approximation of the shape of the curve bent light takes, nothing more.

At least some of its terms should probably be explicit functions of time

Time was specifically excluded from the equation. The intent was to give an idea of the extent of the curvature of light, so for instance you could determine approximately how big a circle will be illuminated for a given light source altitude (such as the Sun).

some vectors appear to have become scalar without motivation.

There are no vectors in that equation. The Bishop constant represents the magnitude of a vector, not the vector itself. The speed of light and the x and y co-ordinates are scalars.

However without some re-working of electrodynamics it's hard to see how light can bend in the mechanical framework of physics - this was why I suggested an additional mass term in the electrodynamic lagrangian although this brings it's own problems.

Indeed, the nature of the accelerator has not yet been addressed, so any supposition at this point is pure speculation (but welcome speculation).

So it is just a curvy line? I can picture a curve. I'm still not clear on what the magnitude of a vector multiplied by an unspecified positions especially when the answer is another unspecified position in an orthogonal axis.

To accelerate the photon in the way you seem to be implying you have two modifications you must make to physics;
- re-write general relativity (well throw it away as it hangs on the fact)
- re-write quantum mechanics - i'd start here.

Replacing the third root with a fourth root in that equation produces a straight line path for light

Entirely untrue. Even the wiki text accompanying this mathematical garbage says that a straight line would be represented by a value of zero, therefore any number higher than zero is not a straight line. Please tell me what number has a fourth root of zero?

Entirely untrue. Even the wiki text accompanying this mathematical garbage says that a straight line would be represented by a value of zero, therefore any number higher than zero is not a straight line. Please tell me what number has a fourth root of zero?

Irrelevant. We are not discussing the equation in the wiki, we are discussing your "corrected" equation. Your "correction" produces an equation which is not the same as the equation in the wiki. Any comments which relate to the equation in the wiki do not necessary relate to your (as yet unjustified) modification.

Furthermore, incorrect. I have no idea which wiki you are reading, but the page linked from the first reply in this thread makes no such statement. This may be demonstrated by viewing the page, pressing Ctrl+F in your web browser, and searching for the string "straight". You will see that the page makes no mention whatsoever of a straight line.

Finally, I am disappointed that someone who acts as smug and arrogant as yourself has no concept of what the "correction" you are proposing -- nay, demanding -- actually means. I ask, for the sake of the society and the people who stand to be misled into thinking that you know what you are talking about, that you refrain from making any more "corrections" to others' theories until you fully understand the concepts involved.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 20, 2013, 01:31:17 PM

Entirely untrue. Even the wiki text accompanying this mathematical garbage says that a straight line would be represented by a value of zero, therefore any number higher than zero is not a straight line. Please tell me what number has a fourth root of zero?

Irrelevant. We are not discussing the equation in the wiki, we are discussing your "corrected" equation. Your "correction" produces an equation which is not the same as the equation in the wiki. Any comments which relate to the equation in the wiki do not necessary relate to your (as yet unjustified) modification.

Furthermore, incorrect. I have no idea which wiki you are reading, but the page linked from the first reply in this thread makes no such statement. This may be demonstrated by viewing the page, pressing Ctrl+F in your web browser, and searching for the string "straight". You will see that the page makes no mention whatsoever of a straight line.

Finally, I am disappointed that someone who acts as smug and arrogant as yourself has no concept of what the "correction" you are proposing -- nay, demanding -- actually means. I ask, for the sake of the society and the people who stand to be misled into thinking that you know what you are talking about, that you refrain from making any more "corrections" to others' theories until you fully understand the concepts involved.

No, not irrelevant at all. Just because I rephrased the text does not mean that it doesn't give the information that a value of zero for Y represents no curvature. Trying to make out that the exact words I used aren't in the article is poor argument indeed. You know that perfectly well, you realise you've concocted a badly made equation that you thought nobody would notice because people can't be bothered to test it. I understand the concepts involved - the only concepts needed are those that produce a curve of the right shape in the equation and a component to represent a force of a particular magnitude (the Bishop constant) to represent the cause of curvature.
Face it, you made up a garbage fictional bit of maths you thought nobody would sit down with a calculator and a piece of graph paper and test, and you've been caught with your pants down.

No, not irrelevant at all. Just because I rephrased the text does not mean that it doesn't give the information that a value of zero for Y represents no curvature. Trying to make out that the exact words I used aren't in the article is poor argument indeed.

Quote me the part of the wiki that supports your claim, then. I don't care about the specific language, just quote me what led you to this conclusion.

I understand the concepts involved

Evidently not. But do feel free to humour me if you're so confident; explain your reasoning instead of making claims and then asserting that they are obvious.

- the only concepts needed are those that produce a curve of the right shape in the equation and a component to represent a force of a particular magnitude (the Bishop constant) to represent the cause of curvature.

I can't even work out what you're trying to say here. The best I can come up with is "the only concepts needed are the concepts needed".

The only reason I'm yet to refute your argument is that you're yet to post one. Stop posting tautologies and backing up your claims by asserting that they are true, and get on with it.

Face it, you made up a garbage fictional bit of maths you thought nobody would sit down with a calculator and a piece of graph paper and test, and you've been caught with your pants down.

Let's not make this personal. I'm sure our friendly neighbourhood overlord-to-be, Thork, would agree that this paragraph was entirely unnecessary. The energy you wasted typing it could have been better spent making your first valid point of the thread.

I can't be bothered arguing with someone who knows full well the equation they have posted is made up nonsense. If you really thought I was wrong, you'd have posted a breakdown in this thread of how all the components of the equation are correct, and why they're in there, because I could not have possibly countered that. Your skating around defending the equation and merely concentrating on attacking my correction of a blatant mistake says rather a lot, I think.
And I think the readers of these fooras are perfectly capable of making their own minds up about the accuracy of your equation.
"Bendy light specialist".   

I thought we'd all agreed that the equation was simply the equation for a curvy line, with the fine feature of concavity, in case anyone wants to minimize it.

I thought we'd all agreed that the equation was simply the equation for a curvy line, with the fine feature of concavity, in case anyone wants to minimize it.

Yep, that's what I tried to tell Parsifal, but he pretended not to be able to understand it.

so infact we have no scientifc or experimental evidence for bendy light. no mathmatics to back it up? wow and this is a corner stone of FE. wow this sounds more and more like religion and blind faith than ever before.

I can't be bothered arguing with someone who knows full well the equation they have posted is made up nonsense.

Feel free to leave the discussion at any time.

If you really thought I was wrong, you'd have posted a breakdown in this thread of how all the components of the equation are correct, and why they're in there, because I could not have possibly countered that.

How could I possibly do that? It seems you have read the relevant wiki page more carefully than I have, since you have claimed it to say things that I cannot find anywhere on the page, yet you do not comprehend that the equation is only an approximation and therefore not (completely) correct.

Furthermore, it is derived from a basic premise, as I have already explained. Equations are not pieced together symbol by symbol; I can not explain how a "component" of the equation is correct any more than I can explain how I make phone calls using a microphone.

Your skating around defending the equation and merely concentrating on attacking my correction of a blatant mistake says rather a lot, I think.

I do not need to defend anything. I have never laid claim to that equation being anything more than an approximation, and an approximation of a hypothetical phenomenon at that. I certainly have not presumed to state its self-evidence and ridicule anyone who questions its validity.

By contrast, you have come into this thread with a "correction", showing obvious ignorance of the concepts you claim to be correcting. When asked to justify your position, instead of rationally explaining how you came to the conclusion that the equation was incorrect, you resorted to ridiculing me.

I have also never attacked your "correction", only your position. Your correction may be perfectly valid, but if you are unable to justify why it is valid, or how you established that it is valid, then you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

And I think the readers of these fooras are perfectly capable of making their own minds up about the accuracy of your equation.
"Bendy light specialist".   

Irrelevant.

Quote from: bowler on January 23, 2013, 12:42:30 PM

I thought we'd all agreed that the equation was simply the equation for a curvy line, with the fine feature of concavity, in case anyone wants to minimize it.

Yep, that's what I tried to tell Parsifal, but he pretended not to be able to understand it.

If you understood the subject matter at hand, it would be quite plain that this is what I have been trying to tell you. However, I see no evidence of pretence on your part.

As you claim to understand what the equation represents, please go ahead and pick any non-zero value for the Bishop constant. Now plot a curve based on your "corrected" equation and see what concavity that has. Then pick another value for the Bishop constant, and see what concavity you get.

Come back and tell me when you find a value that produces a non-zero concavity. I will be very curious to know what it is.


Also, it seems you have overlooked the need to respond to any of my requests for substantiation in this thread. Since you appear to be new to debating, I will give you a hint: It does not make your argument appear stronger to avoid defending it.

I will quote each such request again here so you can respond to them now. I do not intend to respond to any more of your posts until you at least make a sincere effort to do so. In the interest of brevity, I will only post the first instance of requests that I have raised multiple times without an answer.

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.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 23, 2013, 01:36:27 AM

No, not irrelevant at all. Just because I rephrased the text does not mean that it doesn't give the information that a value of zero for Y represents no curvature. Trying to make out that the exact words I used aren't in the article is poor argument indeed.

Quote me the part of the wiki that supports your claim, then. I don't care about the specific language, just quote me what led you to this conclusion.

Light IS "bendy", that's fact.

What I cannot find an answer here is to why, according to flat Earth theory, it bends upwards rather that downwards?
(As I read here, "upward" is the direction in which potential energy grows fastest. The "downward" is the opposite direction. And I'm not asking for refraction part of bending, only the UA part is of interest.)

bendy in the sense that fe says to alow the sun to work in thier model? or are you talking about refraction? just want to confirm becuse im not sure which you ment. also fact? facts requier evidence.