It's too bad you didn't get more participation. I know some who initially seemed interested might have dropped out once they detected where it might be leading.
I suspect so as well.
I'm interested in any ideas on how to approach this better.
The big problem as I see it is that perspective over reasonably short distances, even up to tens of kilometres, is easy to see and quantify
but some claim that we do not know how light might behave over great distances, meaning thousands to tens of thousands of kilometres - not that I consider those great distances.
Hence those people freely postulate things like the "Electromagnetic Accelerator" and the very curving light needed to explain the "Bipolar Map" more or less as presented in
TWO POLES.
The question has been asked, If the sun crosses from the northern circuit to the southern, how is it so little difference is observable in its positions? The above diagram (Fig. 25) will help the student to understand this more intricate part of the subject; but we must remember that there is a great difference between the motions of the solar orb, and the motions of light which proceed in every direction away from it. The motions of the celestial bodies we have already explained in connection with Fig. 22; and we have also
shewn that the equator is a broad belt of vertical rays, and not a mere “imaginary line.”
We will refer to Fig. 25. A t the vernal equinox the sun is at E in the morning at 6 a.m. Its height travelling round with the etherial currents, is seen at the same moment by an observer at A. Now an observer always sees an object in
the direction of the rays entering the eye; and the curve of about 6,000 miles from E to A is so great, that for the
last few miles the rays seem to come to A in a straight line in the direction from H. Hence he sees the sun’s image
rise “due east,” not north-east, proving that light travels in great curves.
In the same way observers at a, and at M, see their dffferent sun images at I and at T ; but it is self-evident that the orb of the sun itself cannot be in these various positions at one and the same time. Six hours later the sun itself arrives from E to A, and it may happen that then its swirl outwards from N drives it into the southern current, and it goes round with that current in the direction of the arrow until it arrives at p, when its light, preceding it in a great curve, the sun’s image is again seen at H from A.
It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at 23 1/2° S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl, electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards. Similar explanations apply to the moon, and to the planets, but with different periods, owing to their different altitudes, as already explained in a former article.
| |  Fig, 25 |
With claims like: "Hence he sees the sun’s image rise “due east,” not north-east,
proving that light travels in great curves"
and "It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at
23 1/2° S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl,
electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards."
How can one debate that sort of quite unproven conjecture?