Which of the two videos represent the truth

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

Thanks for telling me.

Tausami, y u no respond 

Tausami, y u no respond 

Probably because he has a life and does not just sit on the computer waiting for noobs to ask questions.  Just my guess. 

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 05:44:24 PM

Tausami, y u no respond 

Probably because he has a life and does not just sit on the computer waiting for noobs to ask questions.  Just my guess.

It's a Thursday night, of course I have nothing to do. Plus he apparently never responds to aetheric questions.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.

Lol, "lest we forget".

Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".

I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:55:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.

Lol, "lest we forget".

Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".

I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?

Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 09, 2013, 06:23:52 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:55:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.

Lol, "lest we forget".

Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".

I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?

Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.

Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 09, 2013, 06:23:52 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:55:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.

Lol, "lest we forget".

Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".

I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?

Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.

Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?

The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because 2 billion people believe in something, does not make it true or a good idea.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 09, 2013, 06:23:52 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:55:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.

Lol, "lest we forget".

Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".

I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?

Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.

Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?

The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.

Religion is a terrible analogy to use in relation to science.  God cannot be proven or disproven because there is inherently no direct evidence.  Bendy light, however, has a direct effect on the world if it is to be believed, therefore it should be able to be discovered and explained.

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 07:06:01 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 06:34:53 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 09, 2013, 06:23:52 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:55:11 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 09, 2013, 04:09:29 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 03:30:36 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 09, 2013, 03:13:35 PM

Quote from: mbone99 on May 09, 2013, 01:33:16 PM

Samuel Rowbotham originally estimated the sun was 700 miles up. We do not know how high up it is. Do not use the FAQ as evidence you are correct because the FAQ is not 100% correct.

It does not matter how high the sun is, the same problem would still be there. The south will always receive darkness, while we know from real world observations, the south also experiences 24h daylight, something impossible to achieve on a flat disc. At least I have not found the answer.

Furthermore it seems for most of the FET, the theory does not have a single answer as how it all should work. One says the sun is hoovering, the other says it is rotating, one says it is a flat disc, the other says it is a sphere. I have shown you the problem with a rotating sun around a flat disc, I have shown you a problem with a hoovering sun above a disc. These fundamental errors are not explained by anyone here, while when I look at my spherical earth, all the problems I addressed do no longer exist. It matches real world observations, so how do you still stand up with the FE theory?

I will wait for the explanation of the aetheric eyewalls, see if that brings any answers.

I am interested in the aetheric eyewalls he mentioned. I have yet to hear about them.

It involves a notion in science from the past about an aether, a substance that fills all of space.  This has been refuted in several experiments, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment.  It basically states that this aether is how electromagnetic waves are able to propagate in space.  The zone where the atmosphere and aether meets would case light to refract due to the different refractive index between the 2 mediums.  However, this bend would be so substantial that the light from the Sun would be coming down nearly vertical no matter what angle it hit the atmosphere, always making the Sun appear to be at the noon position.

I might be wrong but Tausami is likely talking about an even less successful theory named Aetheric Wind Theory.  The Aetheric Wind is a hypothetical fluid that acts as the mechanism for the Universal Accelertor.  He sometimes mentions exotic phenomena associated with the theory and when you try and find out more he does not reply in my experience.

You may very well be right.  I'm just reliving the disaster of Sandokhan from a few days ago.

Lol, "lest we forget".

Funny how he disappeared so suddenly, wonder if he is off doing more "reasearch".

I wonder about the eyewalls myself. Does sound like something that would get tossed out by a FE'r who gets cornered. Some relation to bendy light maybe?

Although, how come bendy light always gets dissed? I've read on it a little and I see little wrong with it.

Maybe the fact that it is so inconsistent in the way it affects electromagnetic waves and the fact that the constant that is needed to make it work has not and cannot be discovered?

The Bible is inconsistent. God cannot be nor has been discovered. Their are still well over 2 billion people that are Christians.

Religion is a terrible analogy to use in relation to science.  God cannot be proven or disproven because there is inherently no direct evidence.  Bendy light, however, has a direct effect on the world if it is to be believed, therefore it should be able to be discovered and explained.

God supposedly intervenes in everyone's daily life. Their is no way to discover him. Thus he cannot be explained.

But it can't be said whether it was God or a natural coincidental occurrence, thus he cannot be proven or disproven (I'm not going to get more into an argument involving God than that).  No matter how light would bend, it would have to bend iin a predictable fashion.   It doesn't matter what bends it because it still must bend.  Since it must bend and would need to be predictable in order to match observations, it should be fairly simple to find the equation for it, but it's not easy and contains a constant that cannot be found.

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied?  There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?

To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:20:07 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied?  There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?

To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.

We can observe its affects.  It is no more implausible than Gravity.  We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.

It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:20:07 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied?  There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?

To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.

We can observe its affects.  It is no more implausible than Gravity.  We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.

It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.

It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.

Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.

I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:57:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:20:07 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied?  There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?

To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.

We can observe its affects.  It is no more implausible than Gravity.  We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.

It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.

It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.

Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.

I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.

This is not my theory.  Please quote me if I said otherwise.

We only know of Gravity from observing things.  We can not explain it, nor can we determine its cause.  We see stuff happen and assume it is Gravity that caused it.  How is this any different from bendy light?

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:57:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:20:07 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied?  There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?

To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.

We can observe its affects.  It is no more implausible than Gravity.  We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.

It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.

It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.

Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.

I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.

This is not my theory.  Please quote me if I said otherwise.

We only know of Gravity from observing things.  We can not explain it, nor can we determine its cause.  We see stuff happen and assume it is Gravity that caused it.  How is this any different from bendy light?

We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect.  The effect of bendy light cannot be explained.  Major difference.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:57:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 09:44:49 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 09:20:07 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on May 09, 2013, 07:18:44 PM

Bendy light gets dissed as an explanation because it cannot accurately explain anything and there is no evidence for its existence. It is a terrible explanation.

Just because a phenomenon has not been fully studied, that does not mean that it is not real.

I never said it was not real. More important though is I wonder how you are qualifying being studied?  There is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical framework to proceed from either. There is a hypothesis and an equation that may be nothing more than Parsifal's baseless musings (at least that is how it appears on its face). What precisely, in the domain of Bendy Light is being studied and how?

To my original point, Bendy Light is incapable of explaining anything at this point and to offer it as such is disingenuous.

We can observe its affects.  It is no more implausible than Gravity.  We see the affects and zetetically come up with the cause.

It has not been fully studied, but you can not dismiss it just because we can not tell you exactly how it works.

It is just a hypothesis right now. It has no theoretical or observational foundation whatsoever. Parsifal said on this site he does not even recall how he arrived at the equation and his notes are a mess. It is not a theory and you have no reason to believe that it should pertain to the natural world other than your own need for it to be true because otherwise the FE hypothesis dies pretty quickly.

Gravity on the other hand works perfectly well as a theory. It was used to predict the existence of Jupiter and the bending of light around stars. It has successfully modeled binary star systems and is integral to accurate modeling of the expansion of the universe.

I do understand the concerns about gravity from your perspective, but to not apply the same standard to your own hypothesis, which cannot even predict how much a beam of light should bend is, again, disingenuous.

This is not my theory.  Please quote me if I said otherwise.

We only know of Gravity from observing things.  We can not explain it, nor can we determine its cause.  We see stuff happen and assume it is Gravity that caused it.  How is this any different from bendy light?

Apologies if I implied that you concocted the theory, that was not my thought, however by championing it you are taking some ownership in the value of the idea. No big deal really, it's the Internet.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does explain gravity and gives a hypothesis of its cause. It is also capable of making experimentally testable predictions. Bendy Light does none of these. That's the difference.

EDIT:  As a point of fact, you do not observe light bending unless due to refraction.  What you observe is light travelling straight over an apparently curved surface.  The FE hypothesis requires this effect to be true. To say otherwise makes Bendy Light a tautology.  Gravity on the other hand can be observed directly in the behavior of the celestial bodies, the Cavendish Experiment, etc...

We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect.  The effect of bendy light cannot be explained.  Major difference.

Incorrect.  The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances.  We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.

Apologies if I implied that you concocted the theory, that was not my thought, however by championing it you are taking some ownership in the value of the idea. No big deal really, it's the Internet.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does explain gravity and gives a hypothesis of its cause. It is also capable of making experimentally testable predictions. Bendy Light does none of these. That's the difference.

EDIT:  As a point of fact, you do not observe light bending unless due to refraction.  What you observe is light travelling straight over an apparently curved surface.  The FE hypothesis requires this effect to be true. To say otherwise makes Bendy Light a tautology.  Gravity on the other hand can be observed directly in the behavior of the celestial bodies, the Cavendish Experiment, etc...

I did not champion for bendy light.  I simply said don't dismiss it just because it is not fully understood.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 10:26:29 AM

We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect.  The effect of bendy light cannot be explained.  Major difference.

Incorrect.  The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances.  We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.

But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent.  Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 10:55:22 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 10:26:29 AM

We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect.  The effect of bendy light cannot be explained.  Major difference.

Incorrect.  The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances.  We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.

But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent.  Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.

Just because I can not quantify the phenomena in an equation, that does not mean that it can't be quantified entirely.  Like I said, it is still being studied.  Perhaps one day, we will know much more about the mechanics of "bendy light".  Until then, or until it can be proved not to exist, we can't just throw the theory out because an equally unknown phenomena theorized to be gravity has more backing.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 10:55:22 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 10:26:29 AM

We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect.  The effect of bendy light cannot be explained.  Major difference.

Incorrect.  The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances.  We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.

But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent.  Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.

Just because I can not quantify the phenomena in an equation, that does not mean that it can't be quantified entirely.  Like I said, it is still being studied.  Perhaps one day, we will know much more about the mechanics of "bendy light".  Until then, or until it can be proved not to exist, we can't just throw the theory out because an equally unknown phenomena theorized to be gravity has more backing.

It is far from equally unknown. 

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 10:55:22 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 10:26:29 AM

We can't explain what the cause is, but we can explain the effect.  The effect of bendy light cannot be explained.  Major difference.

Incorrect.  The effect would be that light doe not travel in perfectly straight lines under certain circumstances.  We do not fully understand the cause, but we can observe the effect, if bendy light does exist.

But the effect cannot be quantitatively explained as this effect is widely inconsistent.  Gravity has quantitatively been explained and has been used in cosmological predictions, like Neptune.

Just because I can not quantify the phenomena in an equation, that does not mean that it can't be quantified entirely.  Like I said, it is still being studied.  Perhaps one day, we will know much more about the mechanics of "bendy light".  Until then, or until it can be proved not to exist, we can't just throw the theory out because an equally unknown phenomena theorized to be gravity has more backing.

There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN

There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN

Gravity is a theory.  It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does.  We can see the effects of something that people call gravity.  There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right.  Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 11:41:52 AM

There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN

Gravity is a theory.  It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does.  We can see the effects of something that people call gravity.  There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right.  Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.

Do not equivocate on the word theory.  In science the word theory pertains to an area of knowledge.  People, notably Creationists, throw that word out to mean, postulate or hypothesis.  This is not what the theories of gravity, electromagnetism, germ or evolution are.  Gravity has been proven time and time again.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 11:41:52 AM

There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN

Gravity is a theory.  It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does.  We can see the effects of something that people call gravity.  There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right.  Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.

The strength of a theory lies in how well it both explains phenomena and makes successful, specific predictions. The article shows how General Relativity predicted the orbital decay of a binary star system down to the microsecond. I'd say we definitely know it "works".

Not sure what you mean by "many theories about why it works" - General Relativity has the best result so far. Newton's theory is still a good enough approximation that it's equations are still used today when extreme precision is not required. As to the ultimate "why" of it, you can apply that to anything. Why does magnetism work - well, in magnets the spins of electrons are lined up, creating a magnetic field. Why is that? Well, electrons behave like tiny magnets themselves, and the fields add up? Why is that? Errr... it has to do with quantum mechanics. That's about as far as I can go. A little research may take you farther down. A brilliant physicist might have yet a deeper understanding. But at the bottom of it, things just behave the way we observe them to. You can't ask why any further because there's no explanation in terms of something else you already understand.

So, just because you don't fully understand it, and just because a full understanding (whatever that might mean) may not be possible, doesn't mean the theory doesn't work. And it definitely doesn't give someone else's pet theory (which in the case of bendy light is just an untested hypothesis) an equal footing with the accepted theory.

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 01:25:39 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 11:41:52 AM

There's no way you can possibly put an untested hypothesis like bendy light and the completely descriptive and predictive theory of gravity on an equal footing. That makes absolutely no sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578444913060125542.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Einstein's theory (of gravity!) proven right - AGAIN

Gravity is a theory.  It has not been proven, and no one knows how it works, if it does.  We can see the effects of something that people call gravity.  There are many theories about the why it works, and not all of them can be right.  Please don't pretend that Gravity has been proven.

The strength of a theory lies in how well it both explains phenomena and makes successful, specific predictions. The article shows how General Relativity predicted the orbital decay of a binary star system down to the microsecond. I'd say we definitely know it "works".

Not sure what you mean by "many theories about why it works" - General Relativity has the best result so far. Newton's theory is still a good enough approximation that it's equations are still used today when extreme precision is not required. As to the ultimate "why" of it, you can apply that to anything. Why does magnetism work - well, in magnets the spins of electrons are lined up, creating a magnetic field. Why is that? Well, electrons behave like tiny magnets themselves, and the fields add up? Why is that? Errr... it has to do with quantum mechanics. That's about as far as I can go. A little research may take you farther down. A brilliant physicist might have yet a deeper understanding. But at the bottom of it, things just behave the way we observe them to. You can't ask why any further because there's no explanation in terms of something else you already understand.

So, just because you don't fully understand it, and just because a full understanding (whatever that might mean) may not be possible, doesn't mean the theory doesn't work. And it definitely doesn't give someone else's pet theory (which in the case of bendy light is just an untested hypothesis) an equal footing with the accepted theory.

"They predicted the position of Neptune within one degree. The chances of doing that by accident are at best 1 in 360."

So, Gravity could be caused by some kind of boson particle, or it could be caused by time/space dilation, or it could be caused by gravitrons.  Yeah, it sounds like you have it all figured out.   

Anyway, I am just saying that bendy light theory is still a young theory and we do not yet have all of the answers.  That does not mean that it is wrong.

So, Gravity could be caused by some kind of boson particle, or it could be caused by time/space dilation, or it could be caused by gravitrons.  Yeah, it sounds like you have it all figured out.   

Anyway, I am just saying that bendy light theory is still a young theory and we do not yet have all of the answers.  That does not mean that it is wrong.

I never claimed it was all worked out. Gravitons and spacetime curvature aren't mutually exclusive theories necessarily. I don't know about boson - you mean the Higgs boson, responsible for mass? Looks like that's been more or less confirmed. There's still no quantum theory of gravity that ties quantum theory and relativity together, but so what? Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics still work fine on their own. String theory and its progenitors seem to be making some headway into uniting them, but who knows.

My point is, there is no bendy light theory as such. It's an untested hypothesis, with one equation that I know of which didn't achieve much success at all. If anyone besides Parsifal is even pursuing it (if he even still is) I'm not aware of it.

Again, you have no reason to put Gravity in the same ballpark as Bendy Light, there's just no comparison. That there's a single force responsible for things falling and the motion of the planets, there's no doubt. The only question is what is the nature of that force and how does it actually work.