Another hitch with bendy light?

Quote from: Scintific Method on April 10, 2013, 04:39:29 AM

Muggsy, are you seriously telling us you have never seen a mirage? I know you have used a telescope, so you have definitely made use of the predictability and reproducibility of refraction.

As I said. Refraction makes sense. "Bendy-Light" does not.

Ah, good, glad we're on the same page!

I agree. "Bendy Light" is either an absurd theory proposed by false-flag RE believers, misled FE believers, or FE believers trying to take "short-cuts". FE believers should persevere and use real-world evidence, not come up with off-the-wall theories.

Amen. Thank you, well said.

I have a dumb question. How do you know things like this?

For an observer at 22.5 degrees latitude, the sun should appear to have an angular elevation, relative to the horizon, of 67.5 degrees for the latitude shot to work, which it does. But, in the FE model, it's actual angular elevation is ~63.4 degrees. Okay, so maybe we can explain the 4.1 degree difference with bendy light. Let's continue.

For an observer at 45 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 45 degrees. Again, as it should be. Um, except that this means that light is bending back again from it's 4.1 degree deviation before. Hmm. Never mind, push on.

For an observer at 67.5 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 22.5 degrees above the horizon. In the FE model, it's actual angular elevation would be ~33.7 degrees above the horizon, so now we have an 11.2 degree deviation the other way. WTF? Anyway, let's finish the data set.

Is there a computer program you use, or a table in a book, or do you travel with a sextant a great deal?

I have a dumb question. How do you know things like this?

Quote from: Scintific Method on March 26, 2013, 08:06:09 PM

For an observer at 22.5 degrees latitude, the sun should appear to have an angular elevation, relative to the horizon, of 67.5 degrees for the latitude shot to work, which it does. But, in the FE model, it's actual angular elevation is ~63.4 degrees. Okay, so maybe we can explain the 4.1 degree difference with bendy light. Let's continue.

For an observer at 45 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 45 degrees. Again, as it should be. Um, except that this means that light is bending back again from it's 4.1 degree deviation before. Hmm. Never mind, push on.

For an observer at 67.5 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 22.5 degrees above the horizon. In the FE model, it's actual angular elevation would be ~33.7 degrees above the horizon, so now we have an 11.2 degree deviation the other way. WTF? Anyway, let's finish the data set.

Is there a computer program you use, or a table in a book, or do you travel with a sextant a great deal?

G'day odes!

Okay, for the 'apparent' elevations of the sun, I'm going off the fact that sextants have been in use for centuries with great success, so we can safely say that these 'apparent' elevations are correct. For the 'flat earth' elevations, I am doing some trigonometry to work out the angles. Not too hard really, you just need the supposed altitude of the sun (3000 miles in this case), and your horizontal distance from a point directly beneath the sun, remembering that it is about 6000 miles from the equator to either pole, and 90 degrees for the same (statute miles that is, with about 66.7 miles per degree). To work out the angle it should be (at the equinox), use this equation:

angle = tan^-1 (altitude / horizontal distance)

So for my latitude (30 degrees South, or 2000 miles from the equator) you get:

 angle = tan^-1 (3000 / 2000) = 56.3 degrees.

I actually went out on the equinox at local midday and measured the sun's apparent elevation, and it was exactly 60 degrees above the horizon, so I have personally verified for at least one latitude!

Note: for times of year other than the equinox, there is a little more maths involved in working out where the sun should appear to be. I can't remember how to work it out right now, but it's not overly complicated. It does only work for a round earth though.

I reckon I could do it with a high order curve fit. But I won't...

High order polynomials are rarely a good curve estimate for the phenomenon when given a finite set of data points.

If I understood exactly what needed to be found, I'd give the maths a try myself.

Quote from: jason_85 on March 28, 2013, 06:52:56 PM

I reckon I could do it with a high order curve fit. But I won't...

High order polynomials are rarely a good curve estimate for the phenomenon when given a finite set of data points.

If I understood exactly what needed to be found, I'd give the maths a try myself.

Well if you wanted to you could just create a spherical function that maps observation (spherical) to a plane, then you wouldn't have to do curve fitting at all. But what's the point? I could use a curve fit to create a bendy light theory in which the earth is a cube, doughnut or pyramid. It doesn't prove anything other than that we have nothing better to do.

It's reasonably well know that you can determine your latitude by taking a measurement off the sun. There's even a page about it in the wiki. Thing is though, for this to work in a flat earth model, light has to do some pretty funky bending.

I'm going to use the circular, north pole centered FE model, with the sun at an altitude of 3,000 miles, as this seems to be the most commonly used model, and all measurements are based on the position of the sun at local midday on the equinox unless stated otherwise.

For an observer on the equator, the sun appears directly overhead. This is fine, it fits in with everything.

For an observer at 22.5 degrees latitude, the sun should appear to have an angular elevation, relative to the horizon, of 67.5 degrees for the latitude shot to work, which it does. But, in the FE model, it's actual angular elevation is ~63.4 degrees. Okay, so maybe we can explain the 4.1 degree difference with bendy light. Let's continue.

For an observer at 45 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 45 degrees. Again, as it should be. Um, except that this means that light is bending back again from it's 4.1 degree deviation before. Hmm. Never mind, push on.

For an observer at 67.5 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 22.5 degrees above the horizon. In the FE model, it's actual angular elevation would be ~33.7 degrees above the horizon, so now we have an 11.2 degree deviation the other way. WTF? Anyway, let's finish the data set.

For an observer at 90 degrees latitude (the North pole, or the Southern equivalent), the sun appears to be setting (or rising) for the entire day, as it is partially obscured by the horizon. But in the FE model, it's actual position would be ~26.6 degrees above the horizon. Now we have a 26.6 degree shift!

Like I said, some pretty funky bending! Of course, the straight line distances to the sun may have some influence, so I'll leave you with some calculated FE data (for the model used in this example) which someone more mathematically minded can have some fun with.

Latitude: 0, Apparent Angular elevation of sun (AAE for the rest of this data): 90, Actual: 90, Distance: 3,000 miles
Latitude: 22.5, AAE: 67.5, Actual: 63.4, Distance: 3,354.1 miles
Latitude: 45, AAE: 45, Actual: 45, Distance: 4,242.6 miles
Latitude: 67.5, AAE: 22.5, Actual: 33.7, Distance: 5,408.3 miles
Latitude: 90, AAE: 0, Actual: 26.6, Distance: 6,708.2 miles

Oh, wait, that's not all! It's not just latitude shots at midday, but sunsets as well. For someone at the equator, the sun would be about 8485.3 miles away (line of sight) when it appears to set, with an actual angular elevation of 19.5 degrees, which means that light has to change direction a second time! If you head down to 45 degrees South latitude, the sun is 10,816.7 miles away with an actual angular elevation of 15.5 degrees when it appears to set.

If anyone can explain how that works in FET, I look forward to it! Especially if the explanation is supported with working formulas.

EDIT: I just realised, it gets even worse! If you were at the South pole (or the FE equivalent thereof) at midnight on the summer solstice, the sun would be nearly 20,000 miles away, at an actual elevation of 8.8 degrees, but an apparent elevation of 23.5, AND on the opposite side of the North pole, which should be in darkness!

Of course, RET covers all of this quite gracefully and without any convoluted BS explanations.

The fact that you say that you should stop feeding trolls AND that you start threads speaks volumes.  As for light doing, "funky beding", well, of course it does.  Really, with most energy and matter in the universe being unaccounted for, using WRONG physics to try to prove WRONG points is just silly. 

No.  I did not read past the first two lines of your post. 

You should be concerned when a basic trig method shows the sun 's altitude wildly varying. More concerned still when the method is being touted by the FES as showing the true distance to the sun.

...using WRONG physics to try to prove WRONG points is just silly. 

Yes, it is!

Some examples of WRONG physics:
- Bendy light (outside of known refraction and gravitational lensing)
- Rowbotham's 'perspective' causing the lower portion of distant objects to vanish
- Atmospheric obscuration creating a horizon effect
- Universal accelerator

Just to name a few!

Threads like this make me proud to be a "Round Earther".

This might explain a few things:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This might explain a few things:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Nobody is going to watch that, should summarise the key points.

Ryan,
You called me an imbecile in another thread.  If you choose not to watch it, I really don't care.  That might be part of the reason you are struggling to understand this.

Ryan,
You called me an imbecile in another thread.  If you choose not to watch it, I really don't care.  That might be part of the reason you are struggling to understand this.

No I struggle to understand why you feel the need to associate everything, including something as ingenuous as the nobel prize awards with conspiracies. I understand the other side's point. None of them have replied with a refutation to this forum post however...

Just because you guys refuse to acknowledge a conspiracy when it is right in front of your face, doesn't make it any less true.  Face it, this is what has been going on and frankly, it makes me sick that we've been lied to and continue to be lied to.  I feel a deep sense of betrayal.  One day, ALL will know the truth.

I'm listening to that video...this guy is something else.  He had a vision that he was on a raft in the upper firmament looking down at the back of the Sun?  He also misquoted the bible verse he picked out to support hollow Earth theory.  It would probably serve you well to avoid considering just about anything he says.  He also backs up all of his claims without any sort of explanative mathematics to demonstrate a vastly different quality of refraction and such than we see in reality.

Just because you guys refuse to acknowledge a conspiracy when it is right in front of your face, doesn't make it any less true.  Face it, this is what has been going on and frankly, it makes me sick that we've been lied to and continue to be lied to.  I feel a deep sense of betrayal.  One day, ALL will know the truth.

I did watch about 10 minutes here and there of the video and I agree completely with DuckDodger's comment. The guy is delusional, he is clinically diagnosable.

On the note of the conspiracies. Unlike most people on this planet, I require some sort of evidence, whether that be circumstantial, scientific etc to believe in a conspiracy or some fringe idea.

Telling me I should believe NASA and all other space agencies are conspiring to trick humanity into believing in the existence of space satellites and offering no evidence is not convincing. I am not gullible and I am not easily swayed. I will not subscribe to something that fits my worldview regardless of how beautiful it is. You should take some of that advice and apply it yourself.

Just because you guys refuse to acknowledge a conspiracy when it is right in front of your face, doesn't make it any less true.  Face it, this is what has been going on and frankly, it makes me sick that we've been lied to and continue to be lied to.  I feel a deep sense of betrayal.  One day, ALL will know the truth.

It just happens that all the "in front of your face" evidence of such conspiracy theories is just speculation, misinterpretation, and usually wishful thinking. I believe there is a very strong psychological component with conspiracy theorists. They want the conspiracy to be true because it seems interesting or cool to them in a subconscious way, which is why they see all the "evidence" regarding it, when in reality it isn't there.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on May 26, 2013, 12:54:12 PM

Just because you guys refuse to acknowledge a conspiracy when it is right in front of your face, doesn't make it any less true.  Face it, this is what has been going on and frankly, it makes me sick that we've been lied to and continue to be lied to.  I feel a deep sense of betrayal.  One day, ALL will know the truth.

It just happens that all the "in front of your face" evidence of such conspiracy theories is just speculation, misinterpretation, and usually wishful thinking. I believe there is a very strong psychological component with conspiracy theorists. They want the conspiracy to be true because it seems interesting or cool to them in a subconscious way, which is why they see all the "evidence" regarding it, when in reality it isn't there.

Not to derail the topic, but there is a psychological component to conspiracy theorists.  Something to the effect that they need the conspiracy so that there is something to blame for events instead of random chance.  Google "psychology of conspiracy" or something to that effect, it is some good reading.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, I wouldn't like to be diverted from the key forum objective of highlighting inconsistencies with this "bendy light" hypothesis.

It must be glass in the sky....the Earth isn't flat, it's just an illusion.   

And no the glass is not a dome, it's bowl shaped.  We live inside MOTHER Earth.

So, no explanations as to how the sun appears where it does? Anyone?

Well, at least Bogous agreed that bendy light is rediculous. Small victories, I guess.

This might explain a few things:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

This guy explains nothing. He's created an elaborate fantasy in his head that in now way pertains to physical reality. He simply states these ideas as fact, providing no evidence to back any of this up. His Bible quotes are either taken entirely out of context or just plain wrong.

If you believe this guy, then I have some great oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you. Everything you've heard about geography is wrong--Nebraska is actually a coastal state.

P.S. Oh, and he's the second-coming of Christ? Not only is this completely ridiculous, but it's in complete contradiction to the Bible itself.

This might explain a few things:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Wow... I'm really hoping that he's joking.

Question for Earthisaspaceship, why do you refuse to believe NASA but you will believe everything some lunatic posts on the internet?

Also, what does this have to do with bendy light?