Are aircraft submersible or is the water of the of Pond of Berre, France curved?

  • 59 Replies
  • 10685 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer

Water finds its level but is still curved? by Olivier Joseph

Submersible aircraft anyone? Where did the A340 go?

Airbus A340 Air Madagascar - Height: 17 m
     
Airbus A340 Air Madagascar - part 'under'
     
Airbus A340 Air Madagascar - almost 'under'

Or another slight variation in presentation with the Brainy Beaver:
Flat Earth Debunked Again , Starring The Incredible Submersible Aircraft! by Brainy Beaver ;D

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Almosy 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Almost 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
WOT?
A member here for almost 9 years and still you don't have a clue about physics.

Look, I started a thread that showed water that appeared to be curved. Provide a sensible supportable answer or butt out.


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Almost 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
WOT?
A member here for almost 9 years and still you don't have a clue about physics.

Look, I started a thread that showed water that appeared to be curved. Provide a sensible supportable answer or butt out.
I did. EAT. That's typically how this whole topic gets addressed, as far as I've seen. Just pointing out how weird it is you didn't even mention light as a possibility given it's pretty crucial to the observation and something you ought to know pretty well tends to have different qualities under various FE models.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
I did. EAT. That's typically how this whole topic gets addressed, as far as I've seen. Just pointing out how weird it is you didn't even mention light as a possibility given it's pretty crucial to the observation and something you ought to know pretty well tends to have different qualities under various FE models.
No you did not attempt to debate the topic. You simply made a personal attack on me! Read this again:
Almosy 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
And why should I make all the FE arguments? I asked the question and it's up to you FE supporters to supply the FE arguments.
Then those arguments can be discussed.

That's how a debate works but all you ever do is to make personal attacks.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49695
  • Official FE Recruiter
Are you really feeling attacked right now?
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
That's how a debate works but all you ever do is to make personal attacks.
...I gave you the answer. Sure, it was a bit flippant, but that's purely because you gave a false dilemma rather than just asking a straight question. Right now you're the one deciding to focus on your opinion of the other party rather than address the statement.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Are you really feeling attacked right now?
What I would like to see is Jane actually debating a topic rather than a silly post like:
Almosy 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
EAT, even in the Wiki is not an answer without some explanation.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
The wiki and the FAQ are both incredibly outdated. This is not news to anyone.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Almosy 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
EAT, even in the Wiki is not an answer without some explanation.
That'd be why I mentioned your post count. You know the explanation. My understanding is that the accelerator (in UA models, easy to formulate some equivalent in non-UA) acts to bend light so that over long distances it doesn't travel in perfectly straight lines. Thus what you see is not the plane's true height.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49695
  • Official FE Recruiter
Oh, bendy light. I was also lost on the acronym, but instead of feeling attacked I just felt curious.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Oh, bendy light. I was also lost on the acronym, but instead of feeling attacked I just felt curious.
Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory, at least that's what I've seen it referred to as.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
The wiki and the FAQ are both incredibly outdated. This is not news to anyone.
So is "FET" incredibly outdated but neither are my problem.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
That's how a debate works but all you ever do is to make personal attacks.
...I gave you the answer. Sure, it was a bit flippant, but that's purely because you gave a false dilemma rather than just asking a straight question. Right now you're the one deciding to focus on your opinion of the other party rather than address the statement.
A false dilemma? I would think it obvious that the question was "Are the planes going underwater or being hidden by the horizon".

But your "EAT" is quite meaningless because even the Wiki entry does not explain what what EAT is supposed to do.
And in real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation anyway.

So either way your "EAT" is worthless without some justification.

And "EAT" is just a way of making "bendy light" sound "scientific".

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
The wiki and the FAQ are both incredibly outdated. This is not news to anyone.
So is "FET" incredibly outdated but neither are my problem.

Pretending you don't remember the last answer someone discussed with you about a given topic IS your problem, though. Are you seriously going to pretend that you just completely forgot about "bendy light" because it wasn't in the wiki?

Stating you have an issue with it is one thing. Just pretending to have forgotten is another thing entirely.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
That's how a debate works but all you ever do is to make personal attacks.
...I gave you the answer. Sure, it was a bit flippant, but that's purely because you gave a false dilemma rather than just asking a straight question. Right now you're the one deciding to focus on your opinion of the other party rather than address the statement.
A false dilemma? I would think it obvious that the question was "Are the planes going underwater or being hidden by the horizon".
And the answer under FET is neither. Hence, false dilemma.

Quote
But your "EAT" is quite meaningless because even the Wiki entry does not explain what what EAT is supposed to do.
Literally just told you, and like I said you ought to know after being here this long.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Are you claiming light bends in the meter range in the distances shown in the pictures?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Are you seriously going to pretend that you just completely forgot about "bendy light" because it wasn't in the wiki?
It's not up to me to answer my own questions. Why should I be the one to introduce "Bendy light" or "EAT"?

"Bendy light" and "EAT" are the same thing anyway and neither have any justification other than slight atmospheric refraction causing slightly "bendy light".

"EAT" simply dresses up "bendy light" with a scientific looking name and an unjustified "formula", where:
Quote
x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray, where y is increasing in the direction of fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential, and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.

c - the speed of light in a vacuum.

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Mr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy.
      When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero)
Would anyone care to apply that to the A340 apparently hidden by the same height as predicted for the Globe with "standard refraction"?

If no FEer can do that then present your own ideas. You might even look at some of Phuket Word's YouTube videos on "perspective " ::).

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Are you seriously going to pretend that you just completely forgot about "bendy light" because it wasn't in the wiki?
It's not up to me to answer my own questions. Why should I be the one to introduce "Bendy light" or "EAT"?
I don't know. Why did you introduce other answers? Seriously, why is this such a big deal to you? You've been here long enough to know it exists.

Quote
"Bendy light" and "EAT" are the same thing anyway and neither have any justification other than slight atmospheric refraction causing slightly "bendy light".
Uh. No. No they do give more than just atmospheric refraction. Are you going to read what I wrote any time soon?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
"Bendy light" and "EAT" are the same thing anyway and neither have any justification other than slight atmospheric refraction causing slightly "bendy light".
Uh. No. No they do give more than just atmospheric refraction. Are you going to read what I wrote any time soon?
Read, learn and inwardly digest!
In real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation!
So it's up to you FE supporters to explain what EAT does and to justify it. I know you posted:
You know the explanation. My understanding is that the accelerator (in UA models, easy to formulate some equivalent in non-UA) acts to bend light so that over long distances it doesn't travel in perfectly straight lines. Thus what you see is not the plane's true height.
But just saying that "the accelerator acts to bend light so that over long distances it doesn't travel in perfectly straight lines. Thus what you see is not the plane's true height" is meaningless words unless "the accelerator" is justified either experimentally or theoretically ::).

And I'm under no obligation to dig up FE hypotheses or the justification of them and as yet I've seem no real explanation of:
  • Exactly what EAT does, presented by you or in the"Wiki" or
  • any justification or theoretical basis for EAT by you or anyone else.
I know that a lot has been written in various threads about EAT but why should I look for all the points against them?

So post something useful or bug out!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Read, learn and inwardly digest!
In real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation!
So? That means either that statement has not been tested on sufficient scales, or that the accelerator is not the kind of field you're thinking of as presumably they haven't been seen to accelerate tonnes of rock either. Not hard.

Quote
So it's up to you FE supporters to explain what EAT does and to justify it.
Moving the goalposts much? You asked how FEers explain that observation. You got an answer. Don't get pissy that it didn't answer a different question, especially if you're just going to pretend it never happened. Seriously, asking for evidence is a great idea, but don't do it purely to get out of admitting you got a response.
Plus, learn the difference between "Points out that you personally cannot debate to save your life," and "FE supporter."
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Read, learn and inwardly digest!
In real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation!
So? That means either that statement has not been tested on sufficient scales, or that the accelerator is not the kind of field you're thinking of as presumably they haven't been seen to accelerate tonnes of rock either. Not hard.
You and your fellow flat earth supporters are quite free to hypothesise whatever you like.
But in my opinion at least, however, that cannot form a feasible explanation until that hypothesis is justified by experiment or some accepted theory.
So you feel free to call EAT and explanation but please don't expect anyone that knows any physics to accept the idea.

But what I said and meant was that in accepted modern physics light is not deflected by either electric or magnetic fields - at least in field strengths many times any that might be observed.

Quote
Are magnetic and electric fields bending light?
Robert Reiland, Decades of experience in teaching AP level electricity and magnetism, Answered Jun 9, 2015

Not normally.  Electric and magnetic fields only directly act on electrical charge, and light has no electrical charge.

However, in the case of extremely strong electric fields, quantum effects can cause the scattering of photons: Delbrück scattering.

This is an effect that is difficult to detect, and if you are thinking about visible light being affected by electromagnetic fields that can be produced by electrical equipment, there has never been any such effect observed.

Quote
Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Q & A: magnetic fields and light
Q:   I have a question about the effects of magnetic fields on light. Since magnetic force moves charged particles and photons are oppositely charged particles(quark antiquark) would a magnetic field that is strong enough bend or refract light. As you can probably guess im only a high school sophomore(im currently taking stats. and in the fall im taking trig.) so i wont understand big fancy calculas based equation. AP Calculas is next year. :)
- Chase (age 16)
Edon, OH
A:   Actually, fixed magnetic fields have no effect on light propagating through a vacuum and (even for rather large field strengths) negligible effect on light propagating through most materials. Quark-antiquark pairs form another category of particle (meson) altogether, not light. Light is not composed of charged particles.

The interesting cases where magnetic fields do affect light propagation are in materials exhibiting the Faraday effect. In these materials, a magnetic field can change the way the charged particles (mainly electrons) respond to the light electromagnetic field. As a result, the polarization of the light (the plane in which the electric field points) rotates as the light propagates through the material. The direction of rotation depends on which way the field points.

Mike W.

Actually, relativistic quantum mechanics tells us that photons are constantly splitting into pairs of oppositely-charged particles (usually e+e- pairs) which re-annihilate back into the orignal photons.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
These effects are all very very tiny, though, but with care, they can be measured very precisely.

Tom
If you have more recent information I would glad to hear it.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
You threw out unsupported answers. He showed they were wrong. He is not at fault for anything. If you want to get anywhere, support your answers.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

FEs have an equation to describe the bendy light? Do they have experiments? Better yet, have they used this equation to check many many observations and determine the equation matches observed many times?

All conventional physics experiments have been performed many times, are all consistent calculations vs observed.

Does FE have experiments to confirm this equation? A computer model to show how the bendy light consistently follows this equation and explains what we see? RE has this. CoolHardLogic has several graphics diagram of vectors pointing on FE and RE, morphing from one to the other.

Can FE show a diagram of how the bendy light works in several circumstances consistent with this equation?
Is it possible for something to be both true and unproven?

Are things that are true and proven any different from things that are true but not proven?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Read, learn and inwardly digest!
In real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation!
So? That means either that statement has not been tested on sufficient scales, or that the accelerator is not the kind of field you're thinking of as presumably they haven't been seen to accelerate tonnes of rock either. Not hard.

Quote
So it's up to you FE supporters to explain what EAT does and to justify it.
Moving the goalposts much? You asked how FEers explain that observation. You got an answer. Don't get pissy that it didn't answer a different question, especially if you're just going to pretend it never happened. Seriously, asking for evidence is a great idea, but don't do it purely to get out of admitting you got a response.
Plus, learn the difference between "Points out that you personally cannot debate to save your life," and "FE supporter."
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Read, learn and inwardly digest!
In real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation!
So? That means either that statement has not been tested on sufficient scales, or that the accelerator is not the kind of field you're thinking of as presumably they haven't been seen to accelerate tonnes of rock either. Not hard.

Quote
So it's up to you FE supporters to explain what EAT does and to justify it.
Moving the goalposts much? You asked how FEers explain that observation. You got an answer. Don't get pissy that it didn't answer a different question, especially if you're just going to pretend it never happened. Seriously, asking for evidence is a great idea, but don't do it purely to get out of admitting you got a response.
Plus, learn the difference between "Points out that you personally cannot debate to save your life," and "FE supporter."
Answered! Neither electric nor magnetic fields bend light therefore EAT is hogwash.

If you disagree post evidence supporting EAT.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Why do I even bother?
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Why do I even bother?
i don't know why you bother to post unsupported claims.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Why do I even bother?
Neither do I because when I ask for supporting evidence for your EAH (Electromagnetic Accelerator Hypothesis) and you have none.

Just as flat earthers will postulate that "refraction " or your EAH will explain the sun appearing set behind the horizon but it turns out to be empty words and no substance.

Go back to playing Werepenguin XIII or whatever!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Bendy light is curve fitting meets laziness.