Bendy Light Disproof?

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.

OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.

It depends on which ray of light you are talking about. They do not all need to have their minimum at the same altitude (and it would not make much sense for them to).

Perhaps in a sufficiently deep chasm?

A ray of light does not need to reach its minimum in order for us to conceive of one for the path it follows. Similarly, using straight light, blocking the path of a beam with your hand doesn't prevent you from extrapolating where it would go if your hand was removed.

If the light curves away above the ground, we'd never see it.

Correct. This is one way of describing what causes night.

If it curves at the ground, we get the Bollybill Effect.

Incorrect.

If it does not curve above or at the ground, it hits the ground while traveling relatively straight, like rays of sunlight would without the bendy light effect. At least, that's how it looks to me.

Correct. This is what happens throughout most of the day.

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.

I would like to reiterate Homesick Martian's last post, because he is quite correct here:

But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.

This is something that a lot of people seem to be missing.

I would like to reiterate Homesick Martian's last post, because he is quite correct here:

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 25, 2013, 06:01:21 AM

But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.

This is something that a lot of people seem to be missing.

Of what use is an equation with an unknown (and possibly unknowable) constant?  How does one confirm or refute its validity?

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 24, 2013, 11:38:15 AM

OK. The rays are bound to cross, because the function has a minimal point. So if we apply that to a life flat earth scenario, there is a point on the light ray where the ray curves upwards again. Right? But where is this point? Is it above ground? Directly on the ground? Or below the ground? For if it is below ground rays will get absorbed before getting the chance to curve upwards, consequently the Bollybill effect wouldn't happen.

It depends on which ray of light you are talking about. They do not all need to have their minimum at the same altitude (and it would not make much sense for them to).

This is exactly the point I'm unsure about. I'm still not sure if i understand the subject, for my competence is limited, so I have the following question:

1.Every light ray emitted from the sun at a certain point of time shall be conceived as a function fr(x) = y , where y is the height above the earth plane and x is a spacial direction perpendicular to it, neglecting the third spacial direction. There is, of course, an infinite number or lightrays and thus functions: f1, f2, f3.....fn

2.The equation y = (.75)((b/c^2)*x^4)^(1/3) is supposed to be the formula for the bending behaviour of a light ray. b is meant as beta, the Bishop-constant.y is defined differently in the wiki, but I assume here that the direction of decreasing dark energy potential is factually equivalent to the height above the plane.

3.Doesn't that mean that all the functions f1, f2, f3......fn have the function g(x) = y = (.75)((b/c^2)*x^4)^(1/3) as their 1. derivative function?

Cause Bollybill applied the function I called g(x) above, as if it would directly describe the path of the light ray. But to do that he had to change it up doing some reasoning I still don't understand, although I thought I did.

To my understanding, bendy light is horizontal at basically every altitude (near ~8,000 miles away), although not when it is closer to the sun and of a lower Y of course.
Honestly, the math doesn't really matter to what I am describing. The math is only used to help describe what I am saying and to show how bendy light apparently behaves. I know people have said earlier that the line 2,000 miles closer isn't horizontal and that's absolutely true, but I just graphed that particular line to demonstrate the idea, but not to be how it 100% works. Even if you graph closer lines, what I have been saying still happens.
I did a little research to find out how far apart the lines should be, and found that the sunset at the equator lasts 2 min. After some math, that's ~34.6 miles (correct?). This is using the constant the same as the first line, as it apparently is:

Could someone please provide a link to the source of these equations for Bendy Light? I've been struggling to follow this thread. I've been trying to read up on bendy light but it seems like there are contradicting sources of information. Is it on the wiki? If so I haven't been able to find it.
Cheers

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator

Here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator

Thanks.

Quote from: mathsman on March 25, 2013, 05:45:48 AM

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.

Is your formula substantiated? No.

Quote from: Parsifal on March 25, 2013, 08:32:06 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 25, 2013, 05:45:48 AM

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.

Is your formula substantiated? No.

We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.

Quote from: mathsman on March 26, 2013, 06:28:26 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 25, 2013, 08:32:06 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 25, 2013, 05:45:48 AM

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.

Is your formula substantiated? No.

We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.

Maybe start a new thread?

Quote from: mathsman on March 26, 2013, 06:28:26 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 25, 2013, 08:32:06 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 25, 2013, 05:45:48 AM

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.

Is your formula substantiated? No.

We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.

For the formula to have any validity it must match observational/experimental data. I'm not a scientist and have no means of obtaining that data. I am suggesting that when such a formula is put forward it should be as a result of observations. At first, like many theories, it may be crude but with further observations it should become more refined. The fact that the value of the  Bishop constant has not been calculated is evidence that either
1) The formula's proponent has given up on the observations
or
2) The formula's proponent realises the formula is unsubstantiated garbage.

Furthermore if it is a formula which uncovers a new law of nature it should be published in peer reviewed journals not stated on an internet forum. Silly me , I'm forgetting about the conspiracy of scientists.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 26, 2013, 06:48:47 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 26, 2013, 06:28:26 AM

Quote from: Parsifal on March 25, 2013, 08:32:06 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 25, 2013, 05:45:48 AM

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

You can suggest whatever you like, but please take unsubstantiated garbage like this to a more appropriate forum.

Is your formula substantiated? No.

We are not concerned here, if the formula is substantiated, the subject of this thread is, if it is at least possible, that is, what would happen, if light would behave according to it. As a mathematician you could contribute and thus perhaps disprove it easily and forever.

For the formula to have any validity it must match observational/experimental data. I'm not a scientist and have no means of obtaining that data. I am suggesting that when such a formula is put forward it should be as a result of observations. At first, like many theories, it may be crude but with further observations it should become more refined. The fact that the value of the  Bishop constant has not been calculated is evidence that either
1) The formula's proponent has given up on the observations
or
2) The formula's proponent realises the formula is unsubstantiated garbage.

Furthermore if it is a formula which uncovers a new law of nature it should be published in peer reviewed journals not stated on an internet forum. Silly me , I'm forgetting about the conspiracy of scientists.

I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".
EDIT bet

I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".

That may be perfectly true, we'll never know will we? I'm more homesick than you.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 27, 2013, 03:48:42 AM

I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".

That may be perfectly true, we'll never know will we? I'm more homesick than you.

I like the way your avatar is looking on us. He painfully knows but doesn't complain. Who is it, by the way?

I like the way your avatar is looking on us. He painfully knows but doesn't complain. Who is it, by the way?

Euler.

Quote from: mathsman on March 27, 2013, 05:24:51 AM

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 27, 2013, 03:48:42 AM

I beg you don't know more about math than I do, "mathsman".

That may be perfectly true, we'll never know will we? I'm more homesick than you.

I like the way your avatar is looking on us. He painfully knows but doesn't complain. Who is it, by the way?

The avatar is Leonhard Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. He was also in the Guinness book of records for having a superb memory.
The reason he looks the way he does is because at one point in his life he was blind in one eye due to cataracts. He later went blind in the other eye for the same reason. Although he spent the last 17 years of his life in blindness it did not diminish his mathematical output. He trained a couple of his children to act as his amanuenses and this, combined with that superb memory, meant he was still producing ground-breaking work right up to his death.
By all accounts he was a very kind and humble man. I suggest you look up some of his works.

Parsifal, I don't know if you saw it but I addressed the problem of the light rays being too far away.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on March 25, 2013, 06:01:21 AM

Quote from: mathsman on March 25, 2013, 05:45:48 AM

What is the value of the Bishop constant? I would suggest that if nobody knows and the formula of which it as a part is fairly simple then that formula is wrong.

But the general features of the function can be examined without knowing the value of the Bishop constant.

But how could we compute the circumference or area of a circle if we did not know the value of the constant "Pi" or 3.14...... ? It seems I got lost somewhere along this thread ?

So did I.

Quote from: jason_85 on March 25, 2013, 06:34:11 PM

Could someone please provide a link to the source of these equations for Bendy Light? I've been struggling to follow this thread. I've been trying to read up on bendy light but it seems like there are contradicting sources of information. Is it on the wiki? If so I haven't been able to find it.
Cheers

jason_85. : Take my advice.
Don't waste your time ! Don't even try to find it ! I don't think you ever would find it on this website or anywhere else on the Internet....or anywhere else for that matter ? 

It's funny because we already gave him the source.

Quote from: Googleotomy on March 30, 2013, 06:17:27 PM

Quote from: jason_85 on March 25, 2013, 06:34:11 PM

Could someone please provide a link to the source of these equations for Bendy Light? I've been struggling to follow this thread. I've been trying to read up on bendy light but it seems like there are contradicting sources of information. Is it on the wiki? If so I haven't been able to find it.
Cheers

jason_85. : Take my advice.
Don't waste your time ! Don't even try to find it ! I don't think you ever would find it on this website or anywhere else on the Internet....or anywhere else for that matter ? 

It's funny because we already gave him the source.

You linked him to the equation. He asked about the source of the equation. Which I recall Parsifal saying he could not make heads or tails of how he came to this equation finally.

Yeah I had a quick look at it.

Is there any comment on the new graph or can we assume bendy light is disproved? I'm sure a FEer would say otherwise, but no one has commented on it yet.

I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.

I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.

What does that even mean?

I would suggest that bendy light isn't disproven, it just isn't as well researched and developed as some might want you to think.

This statement is totally wrong. Nobody researches bendy light per se, because this would mean that light's bending is taken for grant. Scientists study light, period. If it bends or not we will see eventually. Light is a natural phenomenon studied from centuries and decidedly it doesn't bend in the sense flat earthers want us to believe. It bends only in certain circumstances: refraction trough different substances with different refraction index or presence of gravitational lenses.

The fun thing is that light coming from celestial bodies bends the other way around respect to bogus "bendy light": it makes stars, sun or moon and stuff to be slighty higher on the horizon, not lower. It is called atmospheric refraction and it is well documented and demonstrated. This is science, baby, and you can't do anything about it.

I kind of agree though, but no one has addressed the new picture.