Tom Bishop and his bendy light

  • 31 Replies
  • 5940 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« on: December 15, 2019, 06:54:41 PM »
Tom Bishop in the TFES wiki claims that everybody sees the near side of the moon because the light follows the paths shown below"
Quote from: Tom Bishop, TFES Wiki
Nearside Always Seen
A consequence of this paradigm of upwardly bending light is that the observer will always see the nearside (underside) of the celestial bodies. The below image depicts the extremes of the Moon's rising and setting. The image of the nearside face of the Moon is bent upwards around the Moon and faces the observers to either side of it.

Can somebody, preferably Tom Bishop, please explain some plausible physical mechanism that could cause such light paths?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2019, 07:41:25 PM »
Aetherific eddification/electromagnetic acceleration.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2019, 08:45:35 PM »
Aetherific eddification/electromagnetic acceleration.
That helps, I guess ::).

Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2019, 01:38:39 AM »
Which means what in plain English?   

Wouldn't a synchronous, elliptical orbit of the Moon around the Earth produce the same result? instead of having to resort to 'Aetherific edification or electromagnetic acceleration'?  If not why not?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2019, 01:55:51 AM by Solarwind »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2019, 02:05:19 AM »
Which means in plain English?   

Wouldn't a synchronous, elliptical orbit of the Moon around the Earth produce the same result? instead of having to resort to 'Aetherific edification or electromagnetic acceleration'?  If not why not?
Sure, but FEers assume that the Earth is flat so have to invent all this magic to make such simple observations fit their assumption.

We see the same face of real moon from anywhere it is visible and it appears circular and the same size from every location.

So simple but it presents so many problems for FEers.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2019, 02:34:59 AM »
Not only his. Beny light belongs to many other of us.


Light diffraction caused by light moving in different layers have different density.


here are two things that draw our attention. the object appears lower altitude than it actually is and the slope increases.

the heavier the atmoflat from top to bottom is similar to the example of transition from air to water. when it reaches a light and continuous state, the shape that Tom draws occurs.

Right this:

1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2019, 02:56:19 AM »
Your lovely image of a laser being bent by water is nothing to do with diffraction but is an excellent example of total internal reflection (TIR).  So rather then being diffracted by the water, the light is actually travelling with the water. The light reflects off the inside surface of the water.  Fibre optic works in the same way.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2019, 03:03:35 AM »
Not only his. Beny light belongs to many other of us.


Light diffraction caused by light moving in different layers have different density.


here are two things that draw our attention. the object appears lower altitude than it actually is and the slope increases.

the heavier the atmoflat from top to bottom is similar to the example of transition from air to water. when it reaches a light and continuous state, the shape that Tom draws occurs.

Right this:



Speaking of the pencil, the observer is "inside the glass" (inside the volume with higher density).
From his point of view the apparent relations are inverted.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2019, 03:03:58 AM »
Your lovely image of a laser being bent by water is nothing to do with diffraction but is an excellent example of total internal reflection (TIR).  So rather then being diffracted by the water, the light is actually travelling with the water. The light reflects off the inside surface of the water.  Fibre optic works in the same way.
The first one was the example to explain its mentality, not the mechanism. The mechanism is shown in ntext two frames.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2019, 03:39:18 AM »
Quote
The first one was the example to explain its mentality

The mentality of what... water or light?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2019, 04:47:19 AM »
Quote
The first one was the example to explain its mentality

The mentality of what... water or light?
Are you asking Professor Wise, Flat Earth Scientist, and expecting a rational answer ::)?
Note that Professor Wise, Flat Earth Scientist, quotes the following in his signature:
[quote authou=Samuel Birley Rowbotham]it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles[/b]. [/quote]

Yet the TFES Wiki states
Quote
Sun
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

And now Tom Bishop seems to claim that in his EAT the Sun is 6100 miles above the Earth.

Somethings seem amiss with FE Theory.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2019, 06:39:10 AM »
Not only his. Beny light belongs to many other of us.


Light diffraction caused by light moving in different layers have different density.


Do you have a non fake image or do I need to find one for you?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2019, 07:15:09 AM »
I never thought I would say this but in fairness to Wise, this image is not necessarily faked.  If you fill a bottle of water and then pierce a hole in the side you will get a trickle of water coming out as shown in the photo. If you now aim a laser beam into the trickle of water the light will naturally follow the water path through the process of total internal reflection.

Yes it looks as if the water is bending the light but it isn't. Its rather the light following the path of the water through infinitely small repeated reflections.  There are plenty of photos on the interweb that show this very same thing.  Here is a video demonstration,



The label attached to the image which talks about diffraction of light causing this effect is wrong.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2019, 07:30:54 AM by Solarwind »

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2019, 08:34:27 AM »
my researches on this subject shows that the light reaches the earth surface until it reaches an angle equivalent to the critical refractive index of water / air, but then does not reach the earth surface. this is purely a function of the indices between the dome-atmoflat and atmoflat layers. Now I do not remember the exact number, if I am not mistaken, you can not see the following objects on the dome downer than 30 degrees.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2019, 09:03:54 AM »
I never thought I would say this but in fairness to Wise, this image is not necessarily faked.  If you fill a bottle of water and then pierce a hole in the side you will get a trickle of water coming out as shown in the photo. If you now aim a laser beam into the trickle of water the light will naturally follow the water path through the process of total internal reflection.

Yes it looks as if the water is bending the light but it isn't. Its rather the light following the path of the water through infinitely small repeated reflections.  There are plenty of photos on the interweb that show this very same thing.  Here is a video demonstration,



The label attached to the image which talks about diffraction of light causing this effect is wrong.

Ohh it’s following the water. I have seen that before.

So it’s just wise trying to deceive.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2019, 09:08:56 AM »
Wouldn't that warping of light be visible to passengers on an airplane as they look to the ground?  Even if the effect isn't as great as from the moon, the ground should still appear oblique, no?  In fact, one might even be able to gauge their distance from the ground using this effect, if it were real.

Furthermore, wouldn't this shift the phase of the moon depending on one's altitude?

And if we're to take the above diagrams as real, shouldn't it appear that the moon is typically near the horizon and never overhead?  Surely if you were directly below the moon, the light would still bend away from the ground.  Although perhaps this is my misunderstanding of that the diagram is trying to describe.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2019, 09:35:03 AM »
Which means what in plain English?   

Wouldn't a synchronous, elliptical orbit of the Moon around the Earth produce the same result? instead of having to resort to 'Aetherific edification or electromagnetic acceleration'?  If not why not?
Both are terms in English.

Electromagnetic acceleration refers to an electromagnetic accelerator. In this model, a force or pseudoforce causes the acceleration of electromagnetic phenomena.

Aetherific Eddification refers to eddies cause by the earth accelerating through the aether that cause a change in the path of light.

The first refers to bendy light. The second deals more with celestial phenomena.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2019, 09:38:36 AM »
I believe the EA was not first discovered by Tom as well. I believe it was the hypothesis of some of the others.

I see it now as an approximation of the far more robust non-euclidean model.

Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2019, 11:55:54 AM »
On both counts John, all I can say is 'whatever you say'...  I'm sure your theories make a lot more sense to you than they do to me.  And yes as someone who was born (too many years ago to care now) in England and as a resident of said country ever since, my command of English is good enough to know what language those words were written in... I think you know what I meant!

There are so many reasons why the phases of the Moon as we see them in the real world could not possibly work if the Earth was flat it is difficult to know where to start. Believe all you like but you cannot make it work without introducing ideas which are at best, hypothetical.  In other words EA and your ether edification whatever that is.  The fact is that the existence of the ether or aether or whatever you want to call it is a theory that was confined to the bin by the early 20th century at the latest.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2019, 12:04:43 PM by Solarwind »

*

JackBlack

  • 21550
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2019, 12:05:05 PM »
Light diffraction caused by light moving in different layers have different density.
Refraction is quite well understood.
For the atmosphere it makes objects appear higher than they are.
This is not the bendy light Tom is appealing to.
The bendy light Tom is appealing to goes the wrong way and too a much greater extent.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2019, 12:11:50 PM »
On both counts John, all I can say is 'whatever you say'...  I'm sure your theories make a lot more sense to you than they do to me.  And yes as someone who was born (too many years ago to care now) in England and as a resident of said country ever since, my command of English is good enough to know what language those words were written in... I think you know what I meant!

There are so many reasons why the phases of the Moon as we see them in the real world could not possibly work if the Earth was flat it is difficult to know where to start. Believe all you like but you cannot make it work without introducing ideas which are at best, hypothetical.  In other words EA and your ether edification whatever that is.  The fact is that the existence of the ether or aether or whatever you want to call it is a theory that was confined to the bin by the early 20th century at the latest.

Those aren't the facts. Aether is still in use today, albeit it is out of fashion to call it as such. For example, I have talked to the author of this paper: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012APS..APR.L7009W/abstract

And he confirms his use of the term space medium was done exactly for this reason. Its not hard to shake a stick in any direction to find other aetheric mentalities in modern science. The big bang theory, for example, has an absolute coordinate set snuck into it which reaks of 'aether.' Quantum foam also comes to mind, as do Einstein's words himself that "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time."


*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2019, 12:13:09 PM »
Tell me, if not ether - what defines the permeability and permittivity of light? And as such the equations that guide the vast bulk of so-called 'round earth physics'?

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2019, 01:37:11 PM »
If you want to claim that ether is the same as the electromagnetic quantum field, then you're going to have to play by the electromagnetic quantum field's rules.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17562
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2019, 01:39:43 PM »
I'm claiming that the idea of an aether is not dead by any means - whether you name it ether, a space medium or anything else. Saying otherwise is to present me a pig in a dress.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2019, 01:46:28 PM »
Tell me, if not ether - what defines the permeability and permittivity of light? And as such the equations that guide the vast bulk of so-called 'round earth physics'?

But you claim this as a surprise, the specstrocity of space, commonly referred to as vacuum, has been known about since the 1920's.

Modern aether theories make up a large proportion of physics research.  GR neither proves or disproved the presence of aether, only that it has to be relativistic and symmetrical, Einstein himself referred to ether, but it never caught on.

As you point out the physics community still get a bit touchy about the term, because a number of people shout aha luminous aether exits, but that theory and old school ether theory was abandoned over 120 years ago.

Today its aired mainly by people trying to take advantage of well known, debated and settled talking points in physics.

Cant speak for everyone, but I have no problem with you calling vacuum ether
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #25 on: December 16, 2019, 03:25:12 PM »
I believe the EA was not first discovered by Tom as well. I believe it was the hypothesis of some of the others.
Possibly Parsifal?
Quote from: John Davis
I see it now as an approximation of the far more robust non-euclidean model.
If your non-Euclidean model is so robust where is it presented in enough detail to actually do calculations with it?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2019, 03:25:50 PM »
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the notion of bendy light conflict with long distance water observations?  If you can't be sure that the light is traveling in a straight line, then how can you be sure that the light is indeed parallel to a flat surface?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2019, 11:25:19 PM »
On both counts John, all I can say is 'whatever you say'...  I'm sure your theories make a lot more sense to you than they do to me.  And yes as someone who was born (too many years ago to care now) in England and as a resident of said country ever since, my command of English is good enough to know what language those words were written in... I think you know what I meant!

There are so many reasons why the phases of the Moon as we see them in the real world could not possibly work if the Earth was flat it is difficult to know where to start. Believe all you like but you cannot make it work without introducing ideas which are at best, hypothetical.  In other words EA and your ether edification whatever that is.  The fact is that the existence of the ether or aether or whatever you want to call it is a theory that was confined to the bin by the early 20th century at the latest.

Those aren't the facts. Aether is still in use today, albeit it is out of fashion to call it as such. For example, I have talked to the author of this paper: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012APS..APR.L7009W/abstract

And he confirms his use of the term space medium was done exactly for this reason. Its not hard to shake a stick in any direction to find other aetheric mentalities in modern science. The big bang theory, for example, has an absolute coordinate set snuck into it which reaks of 'aether.' Quantum foam also comes to mind, as do Einstein's words himself that "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time."
Firstly none of the scientists you refer to are flat earth believers. Trying to use Einstein’s aether to give some legitimacy to your own flat earth aether is well of course! Granted you have to scratch around  to find things but while your flat earth aether is substance based, Einstein’s is very much field based in a similar way to say a magnetic field.
The same with quantum foam, nothing whatsoever to do with the flat earth aether concept.
While it may have foam in the name it has of course nothing to do with a physical substance such as the foam on top of your cappuccino! Quantum foam or spacetime foam is the fluctuation of spacetime on very small scales due to quantum mechanics. The idea was devised by John Wheeler in 1955. This is really to do with the non uniformity of space at a quantum level, and not the physical substance as dreamt up by some FE believer.
The link you provided to the paper by Tennessee prof. Ling Jun Wang has again nothing to do with your flat earth concept of aether. When you had your chat with him, what did he think about your flat earth belief? Did he agree with you that earth is an infinite plane? Or did he just put the phone down as one would for a crank call?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 928
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2019, 03:38:12 PM »
The problem with a medium(aether, or whatever) is that it is unnecessary. Everything that needs explaining can be explained without it. So if you expect me to believe it exists, you are going to have to isolate its presence and its properties from its absence.
Nullius in Verba

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Tom Bishop and his bendy light
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2019, 12:42:10 AM »
The problem with a medium(aether, or whatever) is that it is unnecessary. Everything that needs explaining can be explained without it. So if you expect me to believe it exists, you are going to have to isolate its presence and its properties from its absence.

Like all of flat earth belief, particularly of the cosmological variety, it’s firmly grounded in Victorian thinking and concepts, Rowbotham et al. How often do you still see his name cropping up? The incredible thing is he wasn’t even a scientist! What many of these present-day, so called, flat earth scientists then do is cling to the shirt tails of post Victorian scientists looking for cherry picked crumbs that they can shoehorn into their own belief system to make it appear more credible. The recent post by Mr. Davis is a good example searching for mentions of any interplanetary medium that can be used to bolster the flat earth need for a substance based aether. The fact that none of the examples he quotes have anything to do with the flat earth notion of the aether is neither here nor there.
Flat earthers have a huge problem when it comes to any questions relating to cosmology in that all scientific output from this area of research is at odds with flat earth thought from the get go. The fact that there is no such thing as a present day flat earth astronomer is why they still have to rely on Rowbotham and search for crumbs.
Really…..what a laugh!!!