Which of the two videos represent the truth

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 you mock a theory that is considerably more developed than the one you support, and then you ask us for clemency on your ramshackle little supposition?  How about you cats do some work on your hypothesis and come back when you can play in the big sandbox with the grown up scientists?

P.S. The hypothetical boson for gravity is the graviton, this is a gravitron...

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

So you mock a theory that is considerably more developed than the one you support, and then you ask us for clemency on your ramshackle little supposition?  How about you cats do some work on your hypothesis and come back when you can play in the big sandbox with the grown up scientists?

P.S. The hypothetical boson for gravity is the graviton, this is a gravitron...

Magic works perfectly well for your theory, but when we use real world observable data to postulate a theory, you just can't stand it.  Got it.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 03:24:52 PM

So you mock a theory that is considerably more developed than the one you support, and then you ask us for clemency on your ramshackle little supposition?  How about you cats do some work on your hypothesis and come back when you can play in the big sandbox with the grown up scientists?

P.S. The hypothetical boson for gravity is the graviton, this is a gravitron...

Magic works perfectly well for your theory, but when we use real world observable data to postulate a theory, you just can't stand it.  Got it.

You guys use magic like Creationists use the god of the gaps argument. It's idiotic. You do not observe light bending. You observe light behaving as it should on a RE. You try to get around this by invoking a hypothesis that there is no observable data to support. Huge difference.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

You guys use magic like Creationists use the god of the gaps argument. It's idiotic. You do not observe light bending. You observe light behaving as it should on a RE. You try to get around this by invoking a hypothesis that there is no observable data to support. Huge difference.

Mass + Magic = Gravity. 

We may not observe light "bending", (although this is not technically true), but we can see the effects of it and work backwards in a sound manner. 

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 03:50:36 PM

You guys use magic like Creationists use the god of the gaps argument. It's idiotic. You do not observe light bending. You observe light behaving as it should on a RE. You try to get around this by invoking a hypothesis that there is no observable data to support. Huge difference.

Mass + Magic = Gravity. 

We may not observe light "bending", (although this is not technically true), but we can see the effects of it and work backwards in a sound manner.

It is technically true that Electromagnetic Acceleration has never been observed.  All we see is light propagating in waves in a cone.  We only see light bend when it goes through a refractive medium.  The Bendy Light that you are referring to is utterly uncorroborated. It is an effect that you require to make sense of the fact that the Earth's surface behaves as if it is curved.  It may be right, but the work is not there to be able to claim anything remotely like that.  String "Theory" has been worked on for decades by thousands of people and does not make any claims that it reflects the world yet, why should this threadbare assembly of knowledge be able to do so?

Your little equation there is what I was referring to when speaking about the God of the Gaps.  Although the mechanism itself has not been observed, we have a full understanding of its workings on all levels except the quantum.  Your pathetic stab does nothing to change that.  Again, when EA has done anything remotely close to predicting the position of a hitherto undiscovered planet, or describe accurately and obsevably the behavior of binary star systems, or predictedthat light bends around stars, you ring up any physics department in the world, and present your evidence.  Until then, I cannot let any claim to truth of Bendy Light go unchallenged.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

"One little detail"?  No evidence and no equation that can model anything to do with the real world.  These are big problems.  I will not speak for Shmeggley, but I have asked to see more of the detail of the hypothesis, and have never been shown -anything-.  I would honestly love to see more, but I cannot help but think there is no more to be seen.  Please prove me wrong.  I would be honored if you did.

Your little equation there is what I was referring to when speaking about the God of the Gaps.  Although the mechanism itself has not been observed, we have a full understanding of its workings on all levels except the quantum.  Your pathetic stab does nothing to change that.  Again, when EA has done anything remotely close to predicting the position of a hitherto undiscovered planet, or describe accurately and obsevably the behavior of binary star systems, or predictedthat light bends around stars, you ring up any physics department in the world, and present your evidence.  Until then, I cannot let any claim to truth of Bendy Light go unchallenged.

Yes, that is what I mean.  Just because you can not fill in all of the gaps, it does not mean that a theory is false.

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

"One little detail"?  No evidence and no equation that can model anything to do with the real world.  These are big problems.  I will not speak for Shmeggley, but I have asked to see more of the detail of the hypothesis, and have never been shown -anything-.  I would honestly love to see more, but I cannot help but think there is no more to be seen.  Please prove me wrong.  I would be honored if you did.

Observed evidence is evidence, even if it is not conclusive. 

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

What "little details" about gravity are you missing?

As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

What "little details" about gravity are you missing?

As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.

Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.

Quote from: Rama Set on May 10, 2013, 04:46:31 PM

Your little equation there is what I was referring to when speaking about the God of the Gaps.  Although the mechanism itself has not been observed, we have a full understanding of its workings on all levels except the quantum.  Your pathetic stab does nothing to change that.  Again, when EA has done anything remotely close to predicting the position of a hitherto undiscovered planet, or describe accurately and obsevably the behavior of binary star systems, or predictedthat light bends around stars, you ring up any physics department in the world, and present your evidence.  Until then, I cannot let any claim to truth of Bendy Light go unchallenged.

Yes, that is what I mean.  Just because you can not fill in all of the gaps, it does not mean that a theory is false.

You say that just because we cannot fill in the gaps does not mean the theory is false. But just before that you deride gravity for having gaps. Make up your mind man.

I have never said Bendy Light is true. I think using it as an explanation of anything is incredibly dishonest. There is no observable evidence of bendy light, only an empty hole in the axiom that precedes it (the Earth is flat).  Observing light behaving as you would expect on a RE does not qualify as an observation of bendy light for reasons I hope I do not have to elaborate upon.  Using an untested hypothesis as a description of reality is putting the cart before the horse. Do the work and then make your claims.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 05:26:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

What "little details" about gravity are you missing?

As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.

Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.

My point is not to prove one theory over another. My point is there is no bendy light theory, and jroa's claim that gravity is just as incomplete is false.

Quote from: mbone99 on May 10, 2013, 05:44:21 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 05:26:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

What "little details" about gravity are you missing?

As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.

Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.

My point is not to prove one theory over another. My point is there is no bendy light theory, and jroa's claim that gravity is just as incomplete is false.

1. Correct
2. Prove this claim

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 05:26:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

What "little details" about gravity are you missing?

As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.

Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.

A hypothesis being worked on cannot make the same claims that a testable and full theory can, yet it is common at the FES to compare gravity to Bendy Light or UA in regards to how fleshed out it is. They are not comparable in that regard.

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

What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?

Quote from: mbone99 on May 10, 2013, 05:44:21 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 05:26:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on May 10, 2013, 03:38:23 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 03:22:37 PM

I never claimed it was all worked out.

Yet, you are quick to jump all over someone else's theory and nit pick it to death.

If the "theory" can't take a little critique it simply will get rejected and forgotten. The only reason relativity is still around is that it has survived a LOT of "nitpicking.

Critique is one thing, but when you bash something over one little detail that has not been worked out yet, it is no longer critiquing.  When you can explain all the little details about gravity, then you can demand all the little details about our theories.  Until then, keep an open mind, please.

What "little details" about gravity are you missing?

As far as demanding details for bendy light, I'd like to see ANY detail at all. So far there just is no theory at all, just a hypothesis, as I have said several times already. Note that the hypothesis is only necessary when you assume a flat Earth in the first place.

Ok... What does this prove? Bendy Light is a hypothesis being worked on.

A hypothesis being worked on cannot make the same claims that a testable and full theory can, yet it is common at the FES to compare gravity to Bendy Light or UA in regards to how fleshed out it is. They are not comparable in that regard.

I never said that a hypothesis was comparable to a theory. I simply asked what does what he said prove.

This looks like a good time to plug my own poor neglected thread, which I hope can explain why two "wrong" theories aren't necessarily equivalent.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58479.0.html#.UY2XjWS9Kc0

Here's the gist of it:

"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

You also can't neglect the fact that gravity is more devleoped because their are more people working on it AND it is very old - 1500s AD

Bendy light has very few people working on it AND it is fairly new - 5 or 10 years?

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

This is a 9 year old website. I am pretty sure after 9 years someone has explained Bendy Light. Just look around a little and you will find stuff.

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2013, 06:05:26 PM

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

This is a 9 year old website. I am pretty sure after 9 years someone has explained Bendy Light. Just look around a little and you will find stuff.

Actually, I was here when bendy light theory was proposed about 5 years or so ago and in all that time I still haven't seen a satisfactory reason for it to exist.

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

What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?

Parsifal created this equation and he admits that the Bishop's constant has an unknown value.  He also admitted to not really recalling how he derived it.  It also has no basis in observation.  So yeah, you have no details.

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status.  I don't demand answers from Globularists.  Why do you make demands on us?

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2013, 06:05:26 PM

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status.  I don't demand answers from Globularists.  Why do you make demands on us?

May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?

Quote from: mbone99 on May 10, 2013, 05:54:32 PM

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

What was that you were saying? That we have no details or something?

Parsifal created this equation and he admits that the Bishop's constant has an unknown value.  He also admitted to not really recalling how he derived it.  It also has no basis in observation.  So yeah, you have no details.

Looks like a detail to me. May not be correct, may be correct, but it is still a detail.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2013, 02:42:18 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2013, 06:05:26 PM

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status.  I don't demand answers from Globularists.  Why do you make demands on us?

May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?

A lot of our ideas and theories are only a few years old - gravity, for example, is a 400 year old theory. Bendy Light is 5 years old. Of course our ideas and theories are underdeveloped and of course we don't know exactly how they work yet.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2013, 02:42:18 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 10, 2013, 06:05:26 PM

I think that the first thing that bendy light theorists need to explain is exactly what phenomena bendy light is supposed to explain.  If they can explain why there is a need for light to bend, then maybe bendy light theory might make a little more progress and get a little less ridicule.

We don't need you to remind us of your permanoob status.  I don't demand answers from Globularists.  Why do you make demands on us?

May I remind you Jroa that you promised to come with answers to the fundamental errors I showed you? So far I have not seen any answers. Sometimes...yes, there were some sort of answers, but went unexplained... Tausumi (!). Then answers which should support the FET, but then are under development and the tenor is "We don't yet know exactly how it is suppose to work, but...it has to be like that!" Is that the sort of "open-minded" debate there should be?

I gave you answers.  How many answers do you want?