Sun as a spotlight?

The Sun in the Flat Earth Model functions as a spotlight, revolving above the Earth, illuminating one region at a time. But if that is the case, why does the sun go over the horizon? When a spotlight stops pointing towards you, it looks like more of an eclipse-ish phenomenon-- the "mask" (not sure what it's called, it's the thing on the back of the spotlight that prevents it from illuminating omnidirectionally and only aiming one direction) orients toward you, blocking the light. So if the Sun were a spotlight, it would be eclipsed every night by its "mask" and it wouldn't move at all near the horizon.

Light doesn't behave according to the RE model on a flat Earth, by necessity. Judging the sunset by the laws you would expect to hold large-scale on a RE isn't particularly useful.
I hold that light is 'attracted' to objects with a high refractive index, (similar to how metal is attracted to magnets: this may be untrue, and the justifications aren't relevant right now, just take my word for it for the purposes of explaining my hypothesis). In this case, the so-called ice wall around the rim of the Earth would attract a lot of the Sun's light, skewing our observations (also meaning the outer part of the Earth receives more sunlight). When the Sun is distant, the force curving the light would have had far longer to act, so the upper semicircle of the Sun will remain more visible as the Sun as a whole fades out. That's a simplification, I think it's likely there's more at play (it isn't a complete explanation, and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's an idea of one possible answer.

If light were attracted to the ice wall at the outer edges, it would simply reach the ice wall and stop there, making the entire field of view black when looking toward the horizon, since none of the light actually hits your eyes. In order for the sun to be observed at the edge of the horizon, it would have to "boomerang" back to the observer. Why would it do this?

If light were attracted to the ice wall at the outer edges, it would simply reach the ice wall and stop there, making the entire field of view black when looking toward the horizon, since none of the light actually hits your eyes. In order for the sun to be observed at the edge of the horizon, it would have to "boomerang" back to the observer. Why would it do this?

That is assuming a far stronger attractive force than necessary. All I'm saying is that this may curve the light from the Sun just slightly, giving the illusion that, for example, the Sun is more outwards than it truly is. Attractive forces act even if the light doesn't reach that which attracts it.

So, as I understand it, this attractive force doesn't actually attract photons, it curves the path of light towards them temporarily, kind of like pulling on the center of a string. If this were not the case, then there would be no reason for the light to return to where its destination would have been if it had travelled in a straight line. In order for this model to work, however, the predicted path of the photons would have to be an entity in and of itself, subject to forces, anchored at its original ending points and starting points. Photons themselves would not be affected by forces, they would just follow their predetermined path. Does this accurately describe your model of light mechanics? Here is a sloppy MS Paint diagram to help show what I mean.

So, as I understand it, this attractive force doesn't actually attract photons, it curves the path of light towards them temporarily, kind of like pulling on the center of a string. If this were not the case, then there would be no reason for the light to return to where its destination would have been if it had travelled in a straight line. In order for this model to work, however, the predicted path of the photons would have to be an entity in and of itself, subject to forces, anchored at its original ending points and starting points. Photons themselves would not be affected by forces, they would just follow their predetermined path. Does this accurately describe your model of light mechanics? Here is a sloppy MS Paint diagram to help show what I mean.

Not quite. There's no pulling-back, all light tends somewhat towards the ice wall. It's often negligible on the small scale, but on the journey from the Sun everything is permanently shifted in that direction. However, the light still continues on its usual path.
For an analogy, spray a hosepipe in the wind. The wind distinctly moves in one direction: however, the hose pipe doesn't keep going the direction of the wind. It keeps going in the direction it was going, curved just slightly by the wind. Theoretically if it went on forever it would be pushed as far horizontally as you want, but in practise it hits the ground (the observer of the light, in our analogy) before it reaches that point.
You could probably manage something similar with a weak magnet. if you drop a paperclip past a magnet, its motion may be skewed towards the magnet, but it wouldn't necessarily hit it.

Light doesn't behave according to the RE model on a flat Earth, by necessity. Judging the sunset by the laws you would expect to hold large-scale on a RE isn't particularly useful.
I hold that light is 'attracted' to objects with a high refractive index, (similar to how metal is attracted to magnets: this may be untrue, and the justifications aren't relevant right now, just take my word for it for the purposes of explaining my hypothesis). In this case, the so-called ice wall around the rim of the Earth would attract a lot of the Sun's light, skewing our observations (also meaning the outer part of the Earth receives more sunlight). When the Sun is distant, the force curving the light would have had far longer to act, so the upper semicircle of the Sun will remain more visible as the Sun as a whole fades out. That's a simplification, I think it's likely there's more at play (it isn't a complete explanation, and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's an idea of one possible answer.

So you are saying that the sun rises/sets in the north, and that it sets/rises in the south?

Quote from: FEScientist on September 18, 2015, 04:00:28 PM

Light doesn't behave according to the RE model on a flat Earth, by necessity. Judging the sunset by the laws you would expect to hold large-scale on a RE isn't particularly useful.
I hold that light is 'attracted' to objects with a high refractive index, (similar to how metal is attracted to magnets: this may be untrue, and the justifications aren't relevant right now, just take my word for it for the purposes of explaining my hypothesis). In this case, the so-called ice wall around the rim of the Earth would attract a lot of the Sun's light, skewing our observations (also meaning the outer part of the Earth receives more sunlight). When the Sun is distant, the force curving the light would have had far longer to act, so the upper semicircle of the Sun will remain more visible as the Sun as a whole fades out. That's a simplification, I think it's likely there's more at play (it isn't a complete explanation, and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's an idea of one possible answer.

So you are saying that the sun rises/sets in the north, and that it sets/rises in the south?

It's very hard to map compass directions from a RE model to the FE model. What you're saying is both true and false. If you define North to be the theoretical centre (it's not proven that this is the core, that should be acknowledged: it's likely, but not certain), and South to be the outside rim, then yes, but also every direction the Sun could possibly set in would be South, and every direction it could possibly rise in would be North.
If you take the more intuitive, and more complex model of defining the four cardinal directions to be curved, East and West being tangents to a concentric circle, then it will still rise in the East/set in the West, rather than rise in the Northeast and set in the Southwest.

Would a diagram help? My scanner's broken so I can only really do dodgy paint diagrams, but it may make it easier to visualize. The idea's actually pretty simple, it's just a pain to put into words.

Quote from: Flopsinator on September 19, 2015, 12:22:40 PM

Quote from: FEScientist on September 18, 2015, 04:00:28 PM

Light doesn't behave according to the RE model on a flat Earth, by necessity. Judging the sunset by the laws you would expect to hold large-scale on a RE isn't particularly useful.
I hold that light is 'attracted' to objects with a high refractive index, (similar to how metal is attracted to magnets: this may be untrue, and the justifications aren't relevant right now, just take my word for it for the purposes of explaining my hypothesis). In this case, the so-called ice wall around the rim of the Earth would attract a lot of the Sun's light, skewing our observations (also meaning the outer part of the Earth receives more sunlight). When the Sun is distant, the force curving the light would have had far longer to act, so the upper semicircle of the Sun will remain more visible as the Sun as a whole fades out. That's a simplification, I think it's likely there's more at play (it isn't a complete explanation, and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's an idea of one possible answer.

So you are saying that the sun rises/sets in the north, and that it sets/rises in the south?

It's very hard to map compass directions from a RE model to the FE model. What you're saying is both true and false. If you define North to be the theoretical centre (it's not proven that this is the core, that should be acknowledged: it's likely, but not certain), and South to be the outside rim, then yes, but also every direction the Sun could possibly set in would be South, and every direction it could possibly rise in would be North.
If you take the more intuitive, and more complex model of defining the four cardinal directions to be curved, East and West being tangents to a concentric circle, then it will still rise in the East/set in the West, rather than rise in the Northeast and set in the Southwest.

Would a diagram help? My scanner's broken so I can only really do dodgy paint diagrams, but it may make it easier to visualize. The idea's actually pretty simple, it's just a pain to put into words.

Any diagram would help as i have trouble imagining that the light from the sun goes to the south and... what again?

It would still set/rise in the south, and rise/set in the north (actually not because the Arctic does not have a wall). Unless light goes for a joy ride in a giant pinball machine and makes lots of curves everywhere it feels like it.

You may need to alter your screen brightness, apologies, I didn't realize how bad some of the text was until I was finished. There's a key at the bottom: the colour of the text refers to what it's describing.
The paler beige is what you would expect without the force of the ice wall: a straight line. the yellow is the sunlight pulled a little off course by the ice wall: and the orange is where the Sun would appear to be as a result (parallel to the beige straight line).

This is a 2D depiction, but hopefully it will explain the principle. The idea is that if you draw a straight line from the Sun, to you, and then on until it meets the ice wall (assuming, of course, the Sun is close enough to be seen, rather than the light being dragged over your head to the wall), then the Sun will appear to be closer to you along that line than it truly is. The longer the line, the further it is offset.

You may need to alter your screen brightness, apologies, I didn't realize how bad some of the text was until I was finished. There's a key at the bottom: the colour of the text refers to what it's describing.
The paler beige is what you would expect without the force of the ice wall: a straight line. the yellow is the sunlight pulled a little off course by the ice wall: and the orange is where the Sun would appear to be as a result (parallel to the beige straight line).

This is a 2D depiction, but hopefully it will explain the principle. The idea is that if you draw a straight line from the Sun, to you, and then on until it meets the ice wall (assuming, of course, the Sun is close enough to be seen, rather than the light being dragged over your head to the wall), then the Sun will appear to be closer to you along that line than it truly is. The longer the line, the further it is offset.

The sketch is wrong. The orange part which is supposed to be observed location of the sun will actually be on the other side of the grey actual position. If the light hits us at a 45° angle the sun will appear to be at a 45° angle above us, not straight above us.

The sketch is wrong. The orange part which is supposed to be observed location of the sun will actually be on the other side of the grey actual position. If the light hits us at a 45° angle the sun will appear to be at a 45° angle above us, not straight above us.

The angle theoretically wouldn't change, it's merely pulled to a different location.
Magnetism is the analogy I'll keep coming back to, it's actually where the idea came from. If you drop a paperclip past a weak magnet, the paperclip stays pointed down, it simply gets shifted horizontally. The force acts on the whole paperclip, rather than pulling one part with more force than another.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 06:22:23 AM

The sketch is wrong. The orange part which is supposed to be observed location of the sun will actually be on the other side of the grey actual position. If the light hits us at a 45° angle the sun will appear to be at a 45° angle above us, not straight above us.

The angle theoretically wouldn't change, it's merely pulled to a different location.
Magnetism is the analogy I'll keep coming back to, it's actually where the idea came from. If you drop a paperclip past a weak magnet, the paperclip stays pointed down, it simply gets shifted horizontally. The force acts on the whole paperclip, rather than pulling one part with more force than another.

Here's how it should be:

Angle does change. If the light is going to the side it changes direction. If it hit us at a 45° from above angle then we perceive it as the source being at a 45° angle from above.

Angle does change. If the light is going to the side it changes direction. If it hit us at a 45° from above angle then we perceive it as the source being at a 45° angle from above.

I specifically explained why this was not the case in my last post. What is it you believe would make the angle the light is moving at alter?
A force acts on the light, from the ice wall: this pulls the light towards it, at a rate that increases with time. This force acts to shift the photons horizontally: that's all. The direction of the wavelength does not alter; it could only alter if the force was inconsistently applied. The light is not changing directly, it's simply being pulled while it moves in its original direction.

The force used is actually quite similar to gravity (it's derived form unification). For a further analogy, imagine a perfectly balanced bullet, that if placed on a toothpick at half its length, neither side would tilt. now, fire the bullet. It will move down, but its heading will not alter because the downwards force is perfectly balanced at every part of the object. It won't land on its head, it will land horizontally.

The force does not vary (at least, it would not any meaningful amount), so all the light will be shifted horizontally at the same rate. How will this result in a change of angle?

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 08:02:31 AM

Angle does change. If the light is going to the side it changes direction. If it hit us at a 45° from above angle then we perceive it as the source being at a 45° angle from above.

I specifically explained why this was not the case in my last post. What is it you believe would make the angle the light is moving at alter?
A force acts on the light, from the ice wall: this pulls the light towards it, at a rate that increases with time. This force acts to shift the photons horizontally: that's all. The direction of the wavelength does not alter; it could only alter if the force was inconsistently applied. The light is not changing directly, it's simply being pulled while it moves in its original direction.

The force used is actually quite similar to gravity (it's derived form unification). For a further analogy, imagine a perfectly balanced bullet, that if placed on a toothpick at half its length, neither side would tilt. now, fire the bullet. It will move down, but its heading will not alter because the downwards force is perfectly balanced at every part of the object. It won't land on its head, it will land horizontally.

The force does not vary (at least, it would not any meaningful amount), so all the light will be shifted horizontally at the same rate. How will this result in a change of angle?

A force acts on the light, from the ice wall: this pulls the light towards it, at a rate that increases with time. This force acts to shift the photons horizontally: that's all. The direction of the wavelength does not alter; it could only alter if the force was inconsistently applied. The light is not changing directly, it's simply being pulled while it moves in its original direction.

I think you are a bit confused. Neither of us said anything about wavelength, so I have no idea where you got that from. Also, if light moves sideways then it obviously is not moving straight down - it is moving at an angle relative to up/down. If the force is consistent that only means that the angle keeps changing. Also, this is sooo basic mechanics. Velocity is a vector, it has a magnitude and a direction. For light, the magnitude does not change (speed of light) but the direction can change. If the light travels down and to the side, the direction is obviously at an angle downwards. Otherwise the magnitude would change.

The force used is actually quite similar to gravity (it's derived form unification). For a further analogy, imagine a perfectly balanced bullet, that if placed on a toothpick at half its length, neither side would tilt. now, fire the bullet. It will move down, but its heading will not alter because the downwards force is perfectly balanced at every part of the object. It won't land on its head, it will land horizontally.

I think I understand what you mean, and what you're talking about is it's specifik rotation and not it's direction. It does still travel at an angle, even if it's rotated straight forwards. This doesn't mean anything for a photon hitting our eyes though, the only thing that matter is what direction it came from. Our eyes can't tell it's rotation. Our eye only knows where it hit inside our eye, and can tell the direction it came from. It can't tell the rotation of the photon. And rotation would only matter if something was not uniform with photons, something we don't really know anything about, and something that doesn't matter.

I think you are a bit confused. Neither of us said anything about wavelength, so I have no idea where you got that from. Also, if light moves sideways then it obviously is not moving straight down - it is moving at an angle relative to up/down. If the force is consistent that only means that the angle keeps changing. Also, this is sooo basic mechanics. Velocity is a vector, it has a magnitude and a direction. For light, the magnitude does not change (speed of light) but the direction can change. If the light travels down and to the side, the direction is obviously at an angle downwards. Otherwise the magnitude would change.
I think I understand what you mean, and what you're talking about is it's specifik rotation and not it's direction. It does still travel at an angle, even if it's rotated straight forwards. This doesn't mean anything for a photon hitting our eyes though, the only thing that matter is what direction it came from. Our eyes can't tell it's rotation. Our eye only knows where it hit inside our eye, and can tell the direction it came from. It can't tell the rotation of the photon. And rotation would only matter if something was not uniform with photons, something we don't really know anything about, and something that doesn't matter.

I am aware of basic mechanics. Reference frames enter into it as soon as you're concerned with any kind of meaningful representation of the world, however.
I see what you mean: however, the only direction that our eye would be affected by would be the moment the photon hits it.
Further, light is not purely a particle: as quanta is serves also as a wave, and this was why I brought up wavelengths. A wavelength cannot be simultaneously both horizontal and vertical.

Quote

I think you are a bit confused. Neither of us said anything about wavelength, so I have no idea where you got that from. Also, if light moves sideways then it obviously is not moving straight down - it is moving at an angle relative to up/down. If the force is consistent that only means that the angle keeps changing. Also, this is sooo basic mechanics. Velocity is a vector, it has a magnitude and a direction. For light, the magnitude does not change (speed of light) but the direction can change. If the light travels down and to the side, the direction is obviously at an angle downwards. Otherwise the magnitude would change.
I think I understand what you mean, and what you're talking about is it's specifik rotation and not it's direction. It does still travel at an angle, even if it's rotated straight forwards. This doesn't mean anything for a photon hitting our eyes though, the only thing that matter is what direction it came from. Our eyes can't tell it's rotation. Our eye only knows where it hit inside our eye, and can tell the direction it came from. It can't tell the rotation of the photon. And rotation would only matter if something was not uniform with photons, something we don't really know anything about, and something that doesn't matter.

I am aware of basic mechanics. Reference frames enter into it as soon as you're concerned with any kind of meaningful representation of the world, however.
I see what you mean: however, the only direction that our eye would be affected by would be the moment the photon hits it.
Further, light is not purely a particle: as quanta is serves also as a wave, and this was why I brought up wavelengths. A wavelength cannot be simultaneously both horizontal and vertical.

Waves as we draw them in pictures does not represent reality, I hope you know this. The direction is the resultant of any sub-directions, such as down and horizontally. If the photon travels down as much as it travels horizontally then the resulting direction is 45° down from horizontally, or 45° up from down etc.
The light hitting our eyes according to your diagram will hit our eyes at an angle, and we will perceive the opposite direction of that as the position of the source. That's all there is to it.

Waves as we draw them in pictures does not represent reality, I hope you know this. The direction is the resultant of any sub-directions, such as down and horizontally. If the photon travels down as much as it travels horizontally then the resulting direction is 45° down from horizontally, or 45° up from down etc.
The light hitting our eyes according to your diagram will hit our eyes at an angle, and we will perceive the opposite direction of that as the position of the source. That's all there is to it.

Things as we draw them rarely represent reality. Even so, the orientation of waves is important. That being said, i was rushing for dinner when I wrote that last post, so I apologize for how terrible much of it sounded.
My intent was to reference interference: the reason light typically tends to take a straight path from A to B, is because it in fact takes every possible path from A to B, and almost all of those paths are out of phase, so they're cancelled out. The only one without another in antiphase is the straight-line path, which has no mirror.
My thinking was that the path to the eye would necessarily need to appear a straight one: however, the angled-path you reference as giving the angle would clearly have a mirror, so the vertical path seemed preferred.

That being said, I do see your point, and it would seem to refute my hypothesis as it now stands, so thank you.
The last bastions of it would be in proposing spotlight-photons: visible only when viewed from one direction. That would seem to be readily falsifiable, at least in the respect the hypothesis would require. As forces typically increase 'acceleration' (a dodgy word to use in this case, admittedly) then the attraction of the ice wall would not result in the behavior we observe.
However, if the curve could be inverted: that is, if the increase in movement happens at the start, followed by the light curving to move vertically down, presumably that would do a much better job at matching behavior. Even so, this seems unlikely, unless...
Anyway, that's my thinking aloud. There are always going to be a few work-arounds, it just depends on the convenience/assumptions required.
I do still hold light is attracted to objects with a high refractive index, but the force caused by the ice wall may not be so powerful as I hypothesized here. my main interest, now, is in the moon. That's a different topic, however.

I'm working on the basis that if three powerful hypothesis-elements are struck down, that would render a FE highly unlikely and I'll stop working for it: a good hypothesis would likely then be near-impossible to find, or would require too many assumptions. This is strike one.
Thank you for your help.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 12:05:06 PM

Waves as we draw them in pictures does not represent reality, I hope you know this. The direction is the resultant of any sub-directions, such as down and horizontally. If the photon travels down as much as it travels horizontally then the resulting direction is 45° down from horizontally, or 45° up from down etc.
The light hitting our eyes according to your diagram will hit our eyes at an angle, and we will perceive the opposite direction of that as the position of the source. That's all there is to it.

Things as we draw them rarely represent reality. Even so, the orientation of waves is important. That being said, i was rushing for dinner when I wrote that last post, so I apologize for how terrible much of it sounded.
My intent was to reference interference: the reason light typically tends to take a straight path from A to B, is because it in fact takes every possible path from A to B, and almost all of those paths are out of phase, so they're cancelled out. The only one without another in antiphase is the straight-line path, which has no mirror.
My thinking was that the path to the eye would necessarily need to appear a straight one: however, the angled-path you reference as giving the angle would clearly have a mirror, so the vertical path seemed preferred.

That being said, I do see your point, and it would seem to refute my hypothesis as it now stands, so thank you.
The last bastions of it would be in proposing spotlight-photons: visible only when viewed from one direction. That would seem to be readily falsifiable, at least in the respect the hypothesis would require. As forces typically increase 'acceleration' (a dodgy word to use in this case, admittedly) then the attraction of the ice wall would not result in the behavior we observe.
However, if the curve could be inverted: that is, if the increase in movement happens at the start, followed by the light curving to move vertically down, presumably that would do a much better job at matching behavior. Even so, this seems unlikely, unless...
Anyway, that's my thinking aloud. There are always going to be a few work-arounds, it just depends on the convenience/assumptions required.
I do still hold light is attracted to objects with a high refractive index, but the force caused by the ice wall may not be so powerful as I hypothesized here. my main interest, now, is in the moon. That's a different topic, however.

I'm working on the basis that if three powerful hypothesis-elements are struck down, that would render a FE highly unlikely and I'll stop working for it: a good hypothesis would likely then be near-impossible to find, or would require too many assumptions. This is strike one.
Thank you for your help.

If light would bend down, instead of horizontally, it'd follow an arch which would trick the observer into believeing the source was above. So the ice wall would have to repel the light, not attract. So inverted, as you said.

If light would bend down, instead of horizontally, it'd follow an arch which would trick the observer into believeing the source was above. So the ice wall would have to repel the light, not attract. So inverted, as you said.

Repelling the light wouldn't do: there'd need to be something that would attract it horizontally in the first place. The advantage of the ice wall as an attractor was that it would explain the larger body of ground lit in daylight along the outer plane, in addition to the midnight Sun.
With further thought, the refraction model of attraction does appear fatally flawed: even the sinking ship problem runs into the same issue. I will discard it. My visualization was flawed: I was thinking too much in terms of classical objects and their rotation. If the light could travel the curved distance and yet retain its initial angle, it would be successful: however that would require far too many assumptions and exceptions to claim.

I think I'll work from scratch: look at the paths light would take, and consider possible causes.

It may be better to imagine the moon as a light-magnet of sorts. The Sun may be easily concluded to cause its phases, as shown by solar eclipses, and having the underside of an object lit doesn't make sense using the straight-line model.
More likely, it wouldn't be the moon, simply a higher-up object; the moon would be a consequence. I'm thinking aloud again, apologies.

Eclipses remain interested, however.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 02:24:54 PM

If light would bend down, instead of horizontally, it'd follow an arch which would trick the observer into believeing the source was above. So the ice wall would have to repel the light, not attract. So inverted, as you said.

Repelling the light wouldn't do: there'd need to be something that would attract it horizontally in the first place. The advantage of the ice wall as an attractor was that it would explain the larger body of ground lit in daylight along the outer plane, in addition to the midnight Sun.
With further thought, the refraction model of attraction does appear fatally flawed: even the sinking ship problem runs into the same issue. I will discard it. My visualization was flawed: I was thinking too much in terms of classical objects and their rotation. If the light could travel the curved distance and yet retain its initial angle, it would be successful: however that would require far too many assumptions and exceptions to claim.

I think I'll work from scratch: look at the paths light would take, and consider possible causes.

It may be better to imagine the moon as a light-magnet of sorts. The Sun may be easily concluded to cause its phases, as shown by solar eclipses, and having the underside of an object lit doesn't make sense using the straight-line model.
More likely, it wouldn't be the moon, simply a higher-up object; the moon would be a consequence. I'm thinking aloud again, apologies.

Eclipses remain interested, however.

Yup, your model didn't quite work for the rest. I can only think of one way light would work on a flat earth, but I don't think I should share it. It definitely has no scientific ground, and is as improbable as denpressure.

Yup, your model didn't quite work for the rest. I can only think of one way light would work on a flat earth, but I don't think I should share it. It definitely has no scientific ground, and is as improbable as denpressure.

Please do feel free to share (or PM if you don't want to overtake the thread). Some absurd ideas can work far better if given a proper context: and if nothing else it may serve as inspiration.
Part of developing a hypothesis is examining every possibility; even the most ridiculous.

Not sure about the following ideas at all, or if they have anything to do with your model.
"Compound Lens" theory:
Part 1.
Assuming that there is a dome over the flat earth, there are various theories about what it is composed of. Perhaps it is similar in some way to the opposite of a gravitational well of a black hole, or some similar type of force field. Could this dome affect the path of light within the dome?
Part 2.
Assuming that there is a dome over the earth, and that the air inside the dome increases density towards the ground. This would act like a gigantic hemispherical "compound lens" and would distort light as it travels through the air lens.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 03:34:09 PM

Yup, your model didn't quite work for the rest. I can only think of one way light would work on a flat earth, but I don't think I should share it. It definitely has no scientific ground, and is as improbable as denpressure.

Please do feel free to share (or PM if you don't want to overtake the thread). Some absurd ideas can work far better if given a proper context: and if nothing else it may serve as inspiration.
Part of developing a hypothesis is examining every possibility; even the most ridiculous.

Well, the only way I see light working on a flat earth is if light curves away from the earth by some unknown force or property. This would explain phenomenons such as the horizon, objects sinking bottom first, sunsets etc. I'll post a pic of how it'd look like if you want to.

Not sure about the following ideas at all, or if they have anything to do with your model.
"Compound Lens" theory:
Part 1.
Assuming that there is a dome over the flat earth, there are various theories about what it is composed of. Perhaps it is similar in some way to the opposite of a gravitational well of a black hole, or some similar type of force field. Could this dome affect the path of light within the dome?
Part 2.
Assuming that there is a dome over the earth, and that the air inside the dome increases density towards the ground. This would act like a gigantic hemispherical "compound lens" and would distort light as it travels through the air lens.

I don't yet have a model. I am in the process of developing one, so I'm always happy to hear proposed alternatives. i did favor the dome hypothesis when I began, though, I moved away from it because the laws and positionings required did tend to be very convenient: too much so.
Melding the dome and the light-magnet theory would definitely be powerful, as it would cause light to curve upwards, in addition to outwards, so that is definitely an idea to examine.

Well, the only way I see light working on a flat earth is if light curves away from the earth by some unknown force or property. This would explain phenomenons such as the horizon, objects sinking bottom first, sunsets etc. I'll post a pic of how it'd look like if you want to.

I see what you mean, though the one problem is whether it would be feasible for light to reach the Earth in the first place, then.
I did consider that: moon phases are evidently caused by the Sun, and the moon is clearly beneath the Sun, so this would imply light curving upwards. The question would be the mechanism: a dome would be an obvious possibility, though part of my previous hypothesis was that gravity behaves similarly to a magnetic field, and the Earth was formed between the interference of the gravitational fields of two objects: theoretically the object above us could be responsible for attracting light.

Quote

Well, the only way I see light working on a flat earth is if light curves away from the earth by some unknown force or property. This would explain phenomenons such as the horizon, objects sinking bottom first, sunsets etc. I'll post a pic of how it'd look like if you want to.

I see what you mean, though the one problem is whether it would be feasible for light to reach the Earth in the first place, then.
I did consider that: moon phases are evidently caused by the Sun, and the moon is clearly beneath the Sun, so this would imply light curving upwards. The question would be the mechanism: a dome would be an obvious possibility, though part of my previous hypothesis was that gravity behaves similarly to a magnetic field, and the Earth was formed between the interference of the gravitational fields of two objects: theoretically the object above us could be responsible for attracting light.

If we assume that speed of light is genuine, light reaching earth would be no problem. Any light that travels more or less straight down will change it's direction by extremely little, and since light doesn't slow down it'll keep going.

If we assume that speed of light is genuine, light reaching earth would be no problem. Any light that travels more or less straight down will change it's direction by extremely little, and since light doesn't slow down it'll keep going.

The speed of light wouldn't mean much if light was repelled from an object. There's certainly some way for it to work, though I will admit to favoring the idea that light is attracted to something above the Earth rather than repelled by the Earth.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 21, 2015, 05:24:27 AM

If we assume that speed of light is genuine, light reaching earth would be no problem. Any light that travels more or less straight down will change it's direction by extremely little, and since light doesn't slow down it'll keep going.

The speed of light wouldn't mean much if light was repelled from an object. There's certainly some way for it to work, though I will admit to favoring the idea that light is attracted to something above the Earth rather than repelled by the Earth.

If the force repelling light from earth is purely accelerating, then acceleration will only be added at a 90° angle to the direction of travel, and if the photon is travelling more or less straight down the horizontal acceleration will be minimal. Attraction/repulsion is just my way to describe it.

If the force repelling light from earth is purely accelerating, then acceleration will only be added at a 90° angle to the direction of travel, and if the photon is travelling more or less straight down the horizontal acceleration will be minimal. Attraction/repulsion is just my way to describe it.

Acceleration is rarely the best way to think of light. Even so, I know what you mean, and an attractive force can usually be modelled the same as a repulsive force from the other direction, there are just too many issues with having the Earth itself as the source.
For me, it still feels better to have an attractive force higher up. This also makes more sense along the unification front. if we treat gravity as analogous to magnetism, then mass would be similar to metal in that it gets drawn in. Repulsion is harder to justify.