# Questions about the EA Equation

• 31 Replies
• 2944 Views

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Questions about the EA Equation
« on: April 05, 2013, 09:32:49 AM »
y=3/4(bx^4/c^2)^1/3

Where b is the Bishop's Constant (I have no beta on my keyboard), y is the direction of greatest increasing DE potential and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.  I also changed the third root notation to ^1/3 because I have no button for a root symbol.

I was looking at this equation and a couple of things popped in to my head that I was curious about.  I was hoping someone could provide an answer:

1.Why does the light ray in the equation not require a z coordinate?  It seems like this only deals with a two-dimensional space.  What would happen if you included a time coordinate as well?

2.  In the wiki it states, "Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero)..  When I asked Wolfram Alpha to take the derivative of this equation it delivered this result-y'(x)=(bx^4/c^2)^3/x

How does this equation equal 0?

Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 42015
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2013, 09:50:17 AM »
1.Why does the light ray in the equation not require a z coordinate?  It seems like this only deals with a two-dimensional space.  What would happen if you included a time coordinate as well?
You may also ask, why does the equation not deal with 3 dimensional space?  If you look at the path of the sun in the FE model and compare it to what is actually observed at sunset, then it's pretty obvious that the light ray must curve both vertically and horizontally.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2013, 10:26:25 AM »
1.Why does the light ray in the equation not require a z coordinate?  It seems like this only deals with a two-dimensional space.  What would happen if you included a time coordinate as well?
You may also ask, why does the equation not deal with 3 dimensional space?  If you look at the path of the sun in the FE model and compare it to what is actually observed at sunset, then it's pretty obvious that the light ray must curve both vertically and horizontally.

I don't think it would need to involve another dimension, because you could just apply that same equation whether you were north of the sun, or west of it, and the result would be the same. But that's assuming the light curves the same north-south as east-west, which I don't know for sure would need to happen or not in FE.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2013, 10:41:11 AM »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2013, 10:42:56 AM »
Additionally: In regards to the Y coordinate, how's does one even know there is a direction of increasing DE potential to start with?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2013, 10:56:55 AM »

Absolutely, I think it was bollybill that showed when you apply the equation to a real example, the light curves back up, so that if you got up higher you'd see the sun shining through the earth. Then I think Thork (might have been Parsifal) said something unbelievably stupid that you'd see the Earth' surface curve away also. Which of course is what you'd expect to see if the Earth was round and light went straight. So much for bendy light.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2013, 10:59:42 AM »
Additionally: In regards to the Y coordinate, how's does one even know there is a direction of increasing DE potential to start with?

Apparently Dark Energy accounts for anything the theory can't explain, so if increasing DE potential solves the problem, then that's what it does.

Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2013, 11:13:39 AM »

Absolutely, I think it was bollybill that showed when you apply the equation to a real example, the light curves back up, so that if you got up higher you'd see the sun shining through the earth. Then I think Thork (might have been Parsifal) said something unbelievably stupid that you'd see the Earth' surface curve away also. Which of course is what you'd expect to see if the Earth was round and light went straight. So much for bendy light.

I am not sure if Bollybill's assumptions were sound. There was some disagreement.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2013, 11:19:43 AM »
Just jamming now, I will edit the OP later:

If x is given as perpendicular to Y in the first place, what is this equation describing exactly?  Is it describing what a perpendicular transformation is in Bendy Light Space?

Has anyone attempted a dimensional analysis of this equation to give a sense of what unit the Bishop Constant will manifest itself as?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2013, 11:25:34 AM »

Absolutely, I think it was bollybill that showed when you apply the equation to a real example, the light curves back up, so that if you got up higher you'd see the sun shining through the earth. Then I think Thork (might have been Parsifal) said something unbelievably stupid that you'd see the Earth' surface curve away also. Which of course is what you'd expect to see if the Earth was round and light went straight. So much for bendy light.

No, Bollybill was wrong. I needed ridiculously long to realize that, but he had to take the integral of the function to see the path of a light ray. I did that recently and there are no rays that curve upwards.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 11:30:08 AM by Homesick Martian »

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2013, 11:27:56 AM »

Absolutely, I think it was bollybill that showed when you apply the equation to a real example, the light curves back up, so that if you got up higher you'd see the sun shining through the earth. Then I think Thork (might have been Parsifal) said something unbelievably stupid that you'd see the Earth' surface curve away also. Which of course is what you'd expect to see if the Earth was round and light went straight. So much for bendy light.

I am not sure if Bollybill's assumptions were sound. There was some disagreement.

Maybe, all he did to start was plug some numbers into the equation to get a graph showing the light path. I think he went wrong when he changed the position of the observer closer to the sun but still assumed the light path was horizontal at that point, IIRC. Then he ended up with a different value for the Bishop constant and things sort of exploded.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2013, 11:30:28 AM »

Absolutely, I think it was bollybill that showed when you apply the equation to a real example, the light curves back up, so that if you got up higher you'd see the sun shining through the earth. Then I think Thork (might have been Parsifal) said something unbelievably stupid that you'd see the Earth' surface curve away also. Which of course is what you'd expect to see if the Earth was round and light went straight. So much for bendy light.

No, Bollybill was wrong. I needed ridiculously long to realize that, but he had to take the integral of the function to see the pass of a light ray. I did that recently and there are no rays that curve upwards.

Oh I see, I think. Did you graph it? What did it end up doing
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2013, 01:29:50 PM »

Absolutely, I think it was bollybill that showed when you apply the equation to a real example, the light curves back up, so that if you got up higher you'd see the sun shining through the earth. Then I think Thork (might have been Parsifal) said something unbelievably stupid that you'd see the Earth' surface curve away also. Which of course is what you'd expect to see if the Earth was round and light went straight. So much for bendy light.

No, Bollybill was wrong. I needed ridiculously long to realize that, but he had to take the integral of the function to see the pass of a light ray. I did that recently and there are no rays that curve upwards.

Oh I see, I think. Did you graph it? What did it end up doing

I'm lazy, but you could do this one:

1.Let this Wolfram Alpha bot take the integrals of the Bishop function.

2.Take one of the solutions and go to this site (so did I):
http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/function-grapher.php

3.Type it into the box (using a random value for b) and watch the graph that's drawn for you.

You will see, there is an inflection point, but no minimum. Astonishing, but 1 point for FES!

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2013, 01:44:01 PM »
The integral I get requires a constant other than the Bishop's Constant to be true:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integral+of+y%3D3%2F4%28bx^4%2Fc^2%29^1%2F3

Am I missing something?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2013, 02:09:02 PM »
The integral I get requires a constant other than the Bishop's Constant to be true:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integral+of+y%3D3%2F4%28bx^4%2Fc^2%29^1%2F3

Am I missing something?

Hm. I chose a random value for b. Can be 1, but must be positive. The bot thinks it's a variable and draws you a plane, isn't it?
Also, that's not the Integral of the Bishop function! We speak about the cubic root function in the wiki, yes? So what am I missing? I don't want to be bollybilled again.

EDIT: oh, the term in your link is just typed in incompletely. I do that now, choosing b=1 and c=3. We'll see!
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 02:23:12 PM by Homesick Martian »

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2013, 02:25:08 PM »
Just so we are real clear, will you post the Bishop function please?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2013, 02:37:58 PM »
This is how a light ray would look with my random values for b and c:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integral+of+y%3D3%2F4*%28%28%28x^4%29%2F9%29^%281%2F3%29%29

That's the way I see it. What's wrong with it?

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2013, 02:56:36 PM »
Who said there was something wrong with it?  Seems fine to me. What information does this provide?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2013, 03:02:33 PM »
Who said there was something wrong with it?  Seems fine to me. What information does this provide?

That a ray of light, that happens to please Parsifal by bending according to the wiki-function, would never curve back into the sky.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2013, 03:05:36 PM »
Who said there was something wrong with it?  Seems fine to me. What information does this provide?

That a ray of light, that happens to please Parsifal by bending according to the wiki-function, would never curve back into the sky.

Cool. Can you explain how you discerned that?  Would the graph be more parabolic if it would bend back?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2013, 03:47:10 PM »
Who said there was something wrong with it?  Seems fine to me. What information does this provide?

That a ray of light, that happens to please Parsifal by bending according to the wiki-function, would never curve back into the sky.

Cool. Can you explain how you discerned that?  Would the graph be more parabolic if it would bend back?

I don't understand you now. Again, I can have everything wrong, but this curve in the link isn't it, as a ray of light would look like from the side? For any choosen value of the constants it would have exactly one inflection point. If we assume now that y = the vertical distance from the earth plane - as I allways did -, you can see with your eyes, that it doesn't curve up again.

But there's another thing: rays emitted from the sun in different angles relative to the y-coordinate must show a different bending behaviour. So Bollybill and RealScientist did right in saying the Bishop constant cannot be a constant. It must itself be a function of the angle.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2013, 04:08:01 PM »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2013, 04:33:59 PM »
I am just trying to learn here.

Me too.

Elaboration

1. The first derivative of a function shows the behaviour of its curve
2. The integral is the inversion of the derivative
3. The wiki function shows the bending behaviour of a light ray
4. So its integrals are the curves of the light rays themselves
5. But even so, it doesn't work.

#### Bollybill

• 398
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2013, 05:40:43 PM »
I was not wrong to assume the light bends back up; Parsifal has said it does many times.
Why use evidence
Ok

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2013, 05:59:07 PM »
I was not wrong to assume the light bends back up; Parsifal has said it does many times.

Yes, but he meant the gradient, not the ray itself. We really confused that two things in that thread.

#### Bollybill

• 398
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2013, 06:02:42 PM »
I was not wrong to assume the light bends back up; Parsifal has said it does many times.

Yes, but he meant the gradient, not the ray itself. We really confused that two things in that thread.

No, the ray would bend up also. The ray doesn't even need to go down to 0 elevation, it can start curving up according to bendy light.

Edit: I also believe he said the bending is the cause of the apparent curvature of earth, so he definitely was talking about the ray.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 06:16:27 PM by Bollybill »
Why use evidence
Ok

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2013, 06:16:39 PM »
I was not wrong to assume the light bends back up; Parsifal has said it does many times.

Yes, but he meant the gradient, not the ray itself. We really confused that two things in that thread.

No, the ray would bend up also. The ray doesn't even need to go down to 0 elevation, it can start curving up according to bendy light.

At which point of its path would it start doing that?

#### Bollybill

• 398
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2013, 06:25:15 PM »
I was not wrong to assume the light bends back up; Parsifal has said it does many times.

Yes, but he meant the gradient, not the ray itself. We really confused that two things in that thread.

No, the ray would bend up also. The ray doesn't even need to go down to 0 elevation, it can start curving up according to bendy light.

At which point of its path would it start doing that?

I'm not sure of the correct term, but when the light 'gradient' (I believe it's called) is 0 and it starts to curve back up.
Why use evidence
Ok

?

#### Homesick Martian

• 419
• Hardcore Zetetic Terrorist
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2013, 07:06:58 PM »
I was not wrong to assume the light bends back up; Parsifal has said it does many times.

Yes, but he meant the gradient, not the ray itself. We really confused that two things in that thread.

No, the ray would bend up also. The ray doesn't even need to go down to 0 elevation, it can start curving up according to bendy light.

At which point of its path would it start doing that?

I'm not sure of the correct term, but when the light 'gradient' (I believe it's called) is 0 and it starts to curve back up.

I think we have here what is called a saddle point; that is, where the slope is 0, it doesn't curve up but it starts to increase curving downwards again. And I still insist: with "bending up" Parsifal must have meant the increasing of the slope for increasing values of x.

#### Bollybill

• 398
##### Re: Questions about the EA Equation
« Reply #29 on: April 05, 2013, 07:53:57 PM »
No, Parsifal specifically stated the light curves up again, and that that causes the apparent curvature of the earth.
Why use evidence
Ok