bendy light?

Quote from: Parsifal on March 17, 2013, 11:29:42 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 17, 2013, 11:08:22 AM

After finding just the first derivative of that function it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.

An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.

Yes they do?

Bendy light actually explains a lot.

Quote from: squevil on March 17, 2013, 11:25:41 AM

Bendy light actually explains a lot.

Except that it's incompatible with Bedford Levels type experiments.

Quote from: markjo on March 17, 2013, 06:48:47 PM

Quote from: squevil on March 17, 2013, 11:25:41 AM

Bendy light actually explains a lot.

Except that it's incompatible with Bedford Levels type experiments.

Yes, it's also incompatible with Round Earth, Cubic Earth, and Pizza Earth. The fact that one model is not compatible with another model is not very surprising, nor relevant to this discussion.

tl;dr: stop being such a markjo

Welcome back PizzaPlanet.  I didn't miss you at all.

It's nice to see that your reading comprehension skills are just as sharp as ever.

Your comment might be relevant if this thread were about round earth, cubic earth or pizza earth.

But, since this thread isn't about any of those shaped earths.

This thread is about how bendy light is supposed to work in a flat earth model.

Indeed! And, presumably in attempt to cause confusion, you've decided to completely ignore the fact that there are numerous competing Flat Earth models, and pointed out that one of them is incompatible with the other.

  Since when are bendy light and the Bedford Levels experiment flat earth models?

Quote from: markjo on March 17, 2013, 08:23:30 PM

  Since when are bendy light and the Bedford Levels experiment flat earth models?

One is an experiment to support a group of models, and the other is a theory to support another group of models. The two are disjoint sets.

Interesting, I thought that the earth was flat in all FE models.

In that case, the BLE should work in all FE models.

Quote from: markjo on March 17, 2013, 08:38:54 PM

Interesting, I thought that the earth was flat in all FE models.

Yes.

Quote from: markjo on March 17, 2013, 08:38:54 PM

In that case, the BLE should work in all FE models.

No. That's like saying that just because the Earth is spherical in all RE models, then geocentrism (or heliocentrism, for that matter) must be applicable to all models.

Assuming EAT (i.e. optical equivalency to RET, for most purposes), the results of BLE should be expected to be consistent with mainstream science's views - which are directly contradictory to Rowbotham et al's findings.

So, in which FE models does the BLE apply and in which FE models does the BLE not apply?

If light bends (or is accelerated upwards), then by what standard is the earth judged to be flat?

So, let me get this straight: gravity (which a lot of FE'ers deny even exists), an attractive force between objects with mass, can apparently have a dramatic influence on light (which has little or no mass)

Quote from: Parsifal on March 17, 2013, 11:29:42 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 17, 2013, 11:08:22 AM

After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.

An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.

Yes they do?

Quote from: Dog on March 17, 2013, 03:40:07 PM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 17, 2013, 11:29:42 AM

Quote from: Dog on March 17, 2013, 11:08:22 AM

After finding just the first derivative of that equation it already looks like garbage. Alas, time for the second.

An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.

Yes they do?

This post is even less coherent than your previous one. If you cannot even manage to communicate what operation you performed, which is a prerequisite for explaining your conclusion (something you have not even attempted), then I must request that you leave this thread instead of continuing to waste your time and mine.

I found the first derivative of the equation. Why are you acting like there's more to it?

And saying equations do have derivatives is not coherent these days anymore?

Quote from: Dog on March 18, 2013, 12:27:55 AM

I found the first derivative of the equation. Why are you acting like there's more to it?

There is no such thing as "the first derivative of [an] equation". An equation is merely a statement that two expressions are equal. To perform an operation on an equation is to perform the equivalent operation on both expressions.

For example, I can start with this equation:

a = b

This merely states that the expression a is equal to the expression b. I can then perform a simple operation on both expressions:

2a = 2b

This is rudimentary algebra, which I'm sure you are familiar with. However, what seems to have eluded you is that it would not be correct to say that I have found "the multiplication of this equation". To sufficiently qualify the operation I have performed, I have multiplied both sides of my equation by 2.

Similarly, while taking a derivative of both sides of an equation is indeed a type of operation you could perform, it is not a complete description of such an operation.

Quote from: Dog on March 18, 2013, 12:27:55 AM

And saying equations do have derivatives is not coherent these days anymore?

Actually, you asked me that equations have derivatives by ending your sentence with a question mark. Such a question does not make sense.

Well I'm not an english major, big whoop. But I do know calculus, and I've always just said "the derivative of the equation", and I think you know what I mean.

Parsifal, assuming you know the message dog is trying to convey, tell me the correct way to say it (not that his way is incorrect). Should it be "I have calculated the first derivative of the expression 3/4 cuberoot(Bx^4/c^2) with respect to x regarding B as the Bishop constant and C as the rate of change of position of a photon travelling in a vacuum in a straight line over a given interval of time (T)." If you can't tell what he's saying, you're stupid. If you are trolling, you're stupid. Either way, you're stupid.

Why do you waste everybody's time with shit like this and then complain about markjo in S&C for one comment.

An equation does not have a "first derivative". Be more specific.

you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative?

Software like Photoshop is full of mathematical stuff like derivatives, Fourier transforms etc. If you say derivatives are scientifically incorrect, then go deny that Photoshop exists. [...]

Quote from: mosFET on March 19, 2013, 12:01:08 AM

you are stuck in equations from pre-kindergarten school. Go read this stuff: What is a derivative?

Shit, you did differential calculus when you were 3-5 years old? Now I feel bad about myself.

I could be wrong, but I think Parsifal was trying to point out that derivatives are only found for functions, not equations.  Not all equations are functions.

I could be wrong, but I think Parsifal was trying to point out that derivatives are only found for functions, not equations.  Not all equations are functions.