Bendy light not applicable to stars

  • 19 Replies
  • 1210 Views
Bendy light not applicable to stars
« on: January 13, 2020, 11:47:22 AM »
Time lapse video of night scene with camera rotating to stabilize frame with respect to stars.



Bendy light, dome refraction, atmospheric effects or other phenomena postulated to occur at or near the horizon have little to no observable effect on perceived line-of-sight to stars shown.

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2020, 12:46:50 PM »
That depends upon what model you are using.
The bendy light is meant to magically make the FE behave in almost every way as if Earth was round.

If Earth is rotating about its axis, or if the stars are in a sphere rotating around Earth, it works fine and there is no distortion needed.
But if the starts are actually in a disk circling above Earth then they would appear drastically different over the course of the night, and the magic bendy light acts to negate that change and make it appear the same.

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2020, 02:42:00 PM »
Ooh!  Pretty!  That’s a very cool video.

And yes, I find it very hard to see how all this light bending that allegedly makes stars appear to in completely different directions to their actual positions wouldn’t cause the star field to warp massively as it rotates above us.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2020, 02:48:40 PM »
Time lapse video of night scene with camera rotating to stabilize frame with respect to stars.



Bendy light, dome refraction, atmospheric effects or other phenomena postulated to occur at or near the horizon have little to no observable effect on perceived line-of-sight to stars shown.
You beat me to it ;D! I was going to post a similar video but more to show how the Earth appears to rotate compared to the "fixed" stars.
Any effect of refraction (bendy light) is only within a few degrees of the horizon.
I doubt that the mountains allow the stars to get close enough to the unobscured horizon (ie 90° from the zenith) to see any refraction.

But Flat Earthers like Tom Bishop propose light bending magically by 20° or more to make sunrises, sunsets, Moon phases etc fit exactly what we expect on the Globe.
For entertaining reading have a look at Electromagnetic Acceleration.
Is that what they mean by Zetetic Science :o?

*

Danang

  • 3715
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3715
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2020, 11:52:58 PM »
The sky >> introvert :o
The earth >> extrovert :o

CGI detected 8)
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2020, 12:16:55 AM »
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2020, 01:48:06 AM »


CGI detected. 8)
The individual images are not CGI.
All that has been done it to keep the Milky Way fixed and show how the Earth appears to rotate relative to the stars.

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2020, 05:17:00 AM »
It doesn’t even matter if it’s CGI or not.  Anyone who has spent any time looking properly at the stars knows this is what happens. 

Constellations always look the same.  They are always in the same place relative to other constellations, with it all spinning around the celestial poles.

What’s the point in dismissing this as CGI, when you only have to use your eyes to confirm that this is what we see? 

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2020, 08:58:20 AM »


CGI detected. 8)

Recalibrate your detector. It's as faulty as all of your other measurements.  ;)

*

Macarios

  • 1896
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2020, 10:43:49 AM »
For entertaining reading have a look at Electromagnetic Acceleration.
Is that what they mean by Zetetic Science :o?

The linked article shows the light from the Sun bending like this:



The one who invented such "explanation" forgot that:
the light from horizon would also bend the same way,
making the horizon itself being actually higher than where we see it.

And not only horizon. :)
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.

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2020, 01:18:03 PM »
The one who invented such "explanation" forgot that:
the light from horizon would also bend the same way,
making the horizon itself being actually higher than where we see it.
It would make the horizon lower, and obstruct distant objects.

The light is bending upwards.
This means instead of a direct path from the object to you, the light that reaches you would start off going at a lower angle before bending up to arrive at your eyes at a higher angle (along its path and thus a lower angle from your POV) and thus appear lower.

*

Macarios

  • 1896
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2020, 09:36:56 PM »
The one who invented such "explanation" forgot that:
the light from horizon would also bend the same way,
making the horizon itself being actually higher than where we see it.
It would make the horizon lower, and obstruct distant objects.

The light is bending upwards.
This means instead of a direct path from the object to you, the light that reaches you would start off going at a lower angle before bending up to arrive at your eyes at a higher angle (along its path and thus a lower angle from your POV) and thus appear lower.

Exactly.

That's why I said that the horizon will be higher than we see it.
(Physical position of horizon will be above the apparent position.)

Yes, it does mean that we will see it lower than it is.
Which would mean that the Earth is concave.
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.

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2020, 12:31:50 AM »
That's why I said that the horizon will be higher than we see it.
(Physical position of horizon will be above the apparent position.)

Yes, it does mean that we will see it lower than it is.
Which would mean that the Earth is concave.
My bad, misunderstood.
I thought you were saying it would appear higher.

*

Danang

  • 3715
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2020, 11:33:30 PM »


CGI detected. 8)

Recalibrate your detector. It's as faulty as all of your other measurements.  ;)


Yeah sometimes so... but...

isn't phew so delicious? :')

See you on the phew day okay? 8)
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3715
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2020, 11:38:43 PM »
The good answer for CGI accusation:

"The camera's focus followed perfectly with the Milky Way shifting"

Unfortunately, such answer is definitely not phew. 8)
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2020, 12:11:08 AM »

"The camera's focus followed perfectly with the Milky Way shifting"

Unfortunately, such answer is definitely not phew. 8)
So phew's wrong again - situation nominal ;).

Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2020, 06:12:13 AM »
The good answer for CGI accusation:

"The camera's focus followed perfectly with the Milky Way shifting"

Unfortunately, such answer is definitely not phew. 8)

You keep using words without knowing what any of them mean. Why is that?

*

Danang

  • 3715
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2020, 07:08:55 PM »
"You keep using words without knowing what any of them mean. Why is that?"

>> Because of phew 8)
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 3715
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Bendy light not applicable to stars
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2020, 07:12:38 PM »
"So phew's wrong again - situation nominal"

>> "So phew's correct again - situation normal" 8)
TRY: (Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map and Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/