consider this "on earth" photo

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html

Look at it, then think about it.  Before you start talking about
fake photos, realize that you can go there and see it for yourself when the conditions are right.

This means that at this particular point, the sun cast a shadow on the underside of the cloud.
How can this happen on a flat earth?

I've just got three words for you: bendy light.

Yep. It's amazing how only light rays from the sun that produce this phenomenon bend *just so* to account for this phenomenon at this time, but other light from other sources ignore the bendiness at the same time, or at any other time. Yay for bendy light (with no observational evidence)!

I've just got three words for you: bendy light.

I've just got three words for you: what bends the light?



Please don't say GodDidIt.

From the other website...


β - the Bishop constant, 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.

I dare you to even try to make sense of it. No one else has ever been able to. Nobel worthy if you crack the code.

From the other website...


β - the Bishop constant, 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.

I dare you to even try to make sense of it. No one else has ever been able to. Nobel worthy if you crack the code.

That's of the order x^4/3
That's. Weird. Like, mathematically coherent, and maybe my mechanical knowledge is off, but I don't think that's a particularly common term.

It graphs to a V shape anyway, so it's got that going for it.

More of a curve - just type y=x^(4/3) into google to see the real thing - and the gradient will depend, but it's just that x term multiplied by a constant.
My best guess as to origin would be that the rate of change is of the order x^1/3 which maybe ties to three dimensions? (Especially with the 3/4 on the outside). Which is really damn weird for something just in terms of x and y.

I guess if light travels x distance horizontally, it must also travel y distance vertically? The y has to be measuring displacement - setting the Bishop constant to zero/removing the effect of the accelerator nets you y=0, no displacement, which is expected.

But yeah, this is just y=Ax^4/3 where A = (3b^1/3)/(4c^2/3) and b is the Bishop constant, and y tell you how far up light's been knocked over x distance away. Looks worse than it is.

Quote from: Stash on February 15, 2023, 02:46:01 PM

From the other website...


β - the Bishop constant, 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.

I dare you to even try to make sense of it. No one else has ever been able to. Nobel worthy if you crack the code.

That's of the order x^4/3
That's. Weird. Like, mathematically coherent, and maybe my mechanical knowledge is off, but I don't think that's a particularly common term.

It graphs to a V shape anyway, so it's got that going for it.

More of a curve - just type y=x^(4/3) into google to see the real thing - and the gradient will depend, but it's just that x term multiplied by a constant.
My best guess as to origin would be that the rate of change is of the order x^1/3 which maybe ties to three dimensions? (Especially with the 3/4 on the outside). Which is really damn weird for something just in terms of x and y.

I guess if light travels x distance horizontally, it must also travel y distance vertically? The y has to be measuring displacement - setting the Bishop constant to zero/removing the effect of the accelerator nets you y=0, no displacement, which is expected.

But yeah, this is just y=Ax^4/3 where A = (3b^1/3)/(4c^2/3) and b is the Bishop constant, and y tell you how far up light's been knocked over x distance away. Looks worse than it is.

Why must it also have to travel vertically?  I'm reminded of an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.  Light travelling horizontally will not just travel vertically without a force acting upon it.

Quote from: Slime on February 16, 2023, 06:45:33 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 15, 2023, 02:46:01 PM

From the other website...


β - the Bishop constant, 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.

I dare you to even try to make sense of it. No one else has ever been able to. Nobel worthy if you crack the code.

That's of the order x^4/3
That's. Weird. Like, mathematically coherent, and maybe my mechanical knowledge is off, but I don't think that's a particularly common term.

It graphs to a V shape anyway, so it's got that going for it.

More of a curve - just type y=x^(4/3) into google to see the real thing - and the gradient will depend, but it's just that x term multiplied by a constant.
My best guess as to origin would be that the rate of change is of the order x^1/3 which maybe ties to three dimensions? (Especially with the 3/4 on the outside). Which is really damn weird for something just in terms of x and y.

I guess if light travels x distance horizontally, it must also travel y distance vertically? The y has to be measuring displacement - setting the Bishop constant to zero/removing the effect of the accelerator nets you y=0, no displacement, which is expected.

But yeah, this is just y=Ax^4/3 where A = (3b^1/3)/(4c^2/3) and b is the Bishop constant, and y tell you how far up light's been knocked over x distance away. Looks worse than it is.

Why must it also have to travel vertically?  I'm reminded of an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.  Light travelling horizontally will not just travel vertically without a force acting upon it.

It says "Due to the impact of dark energy." I assume this is a UA model where the accelerator is acting on light.

Horizon: looks flat
Flat earther: Obviously that means earth is flat, this is the zetetic method!
Light: looks like it travels in a straight line
Flat earther: Obviously it bends upwards by some unknown mechanism!

Also, I want to give you crap for calling something that you don't understand and can't quantify 'dark energy', but then again, so do the astrophysicists  [however, they do have observational evidence for the phenomenon...]

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on February 16, 2023, 07:56:46 AM

Quote from: Slime on February 16, 2023, 06:45:33 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 15, 2023, 02:46:01 PM

From the other website...


β - the Bishop constant, 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.

I dare you to even try to make sense of it. No one else has ever been able to. Nobel worthy if you crack the code.

That's of the order x^4/3
That's. Weird. Like, mathematically coherent, and maybe my mechanical knowledge is off, but I don't think that's a particularly common term.

It graphs to a V shape anyway, so it's got that going for it.

More of a curve - just type y=x^(4/3) into google to see the real thing - and the gradient will depend, but it's just that x term multiplied by a constant.
My best guess as to origin would be that the rate of change is of the order x^1/3 which maybe ties to three dimensions? (Especially with the 3/4 on the outside). Which is really damn weird for something just in terms of x and y.

I guess if light travels x distance horizontally, it must also travel y distance vertically? The y has to be measuring displacement - setting the Bishop constant to zero/removing the effect of the accelerator nets you y=0, no displacement, which is expected.

But yeah, this is just y=Ax^4/3 where A = (3b^1/3)/(4c^2/3) and b is the Bishop constant, and y tell you how far up light's been knocked over x distance away. Looks worse than it is.

Why must it also have to travel vertically?  I'm reminded of an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon.  Light travelling horizontally will not just travel vertically without a force acting upon it.

It says "Due to the impact of dark energy." I assume this is a UA model where the accelerator is acting on light.

There's EA and UA, but I get them confused. EA seems to pertain to bendy light and UA pertains to gravity. But maybe they connect somehow.

In any case, what needs to occur is an application of the constant to real world observations with predictable results. Like calculating the bend and how far a below lit cloud needs to be when the Sun above is bending it's rays upward. Why doesn't it happen all of the time? And perhaps why isn't the overhang on a porch lit up from the underside due to bendy light, etc. Under what calculable circumstances would it be or not. etc.

All the constant shows is that something, anything, can curve. Could be applied to a steel i-beam as well as a sun beam, given, I guess, some unkown quantity of dark energy.

There's EA and UA, but I get them confused. EA seems to pertain to bendy light and UA pertains to gravity. But maybe they connect somehow.

In any case, what needs to occur is an application of the constant to real world observations with predictable results. Like calculating the bend and how far a below lit cloud needs to be when the Sun above is bending it's rays upward. Why doesn't it happen all of the time? And perhaps why isn't the overhang on a porch lit up from the underside due to bendy light, etc. Under what calculable circumstances would it be or not. etc.

All the constant shows is that something, anything, can curve. Could be applied to a steel i-beam as well as a sun beam, given, I guess, some unkown quantity of dark energy.

From what I've seen, EAT is Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory, just a subset of UA with a specific property claimed about the accelerator.
And that sounds about right, just presumably the constant is such that the effect is small for light that travels a limited horizontal distance. Unless you had a really long porch, the effect would be negligible.
But yeah. One could probably get an approximation for the constant with a measurement.

Quote from: Stash on February 17, 2023, 01:01:16 AM

There's EA and UA, but I get them confused. EA seems to pertain to bendy light and UA pertains to gravity. But maybe they connect somehow.

In any case, what needs to occur is an application of the constant to real world observations with predictable results. Like calculating the bend and how far a below lit cloud needs to be when the Sun above is bending it's rays upward. Why doesn't it happen all of the time? And perhaps why isn't the overhang on a porch lit up from the underside due to bendy light, etc. Under what calculable circumstances would it be or not. etc.

All the constant shows is that something, anything, can curve. Could be applied to a steel i-beam as well as a sun beam, given, I guess, some unkown quantity of dark energy.

From what I've seen, EAT is Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory, just a subset of UA with a specific property claimed about the accelerator.
And that sounds about right, just presumably the constant is such that the effect is small for light that travels a limited horizontal distance. Unless you had a really long porch, the effect would be negligible.
But yeah. One could probably get an approximation for the constant with a measurement.

So that should be pretty easy then for say, a sunset. Use the 3000 mile high sun, measure how far away the sun is from you just as it's setting. Plug in the constant and you're good to go. As well, calculate such thoughout the day from sunrise to sunset. Again, should be easy. I don't know why it hasn't been done.

Quote from: Slime on February 17, 2023, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 17, 2023, 01:01:16 AM

There's EA and UA, but I get them confused. EA seems to pertain to bendy light and UA pertains to gravity. But maybe they connect somehow.

In any case, what needs to occur is an application of the constant to real world observations with predictable results. Like calculating the bend and how far a below lit cloud needs to be when the Sun above is bending it's rays upward. Why doesn't it happen all of the time? And perhaps why isn't the overhang on a porch lit up from the underside due to bendy light, etc. Under what calculable circumstances would it be or not. etc.

All the constant shows is that something, anything, can curve. Could be applied to a steel i-beam as well as a sun beam, given, I guess, some unkown quantity of dark energy.

From what I've seen, EAT is Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory, just a subset of UA with a specific property claimed about the accelerator.
And that sounds about right, just presumably the constant is such that the effect is small for light that travels a limited horizontal distance. Unless you had a really long porch, the effect would be negligible.
But yeah. One could probably get an approximation for the constant with a measurement.

So that should be pretty easy then for say, a sunset. Use the 3000 mile high sun, measure how far away the sun is from you just as it's setting. Plug in the constant and you're good to go. As well, calculate such thoughout the day from sunrise to sunset. Again, should be easy. I don't know why it hasn't been done.

Hypothetically can be done with a ship going over the horizon too. At least nets a ballpark figure, even if one might not know both x and y in perfect detail.
Though I will admit I'm not 100% convinced the Bishop variation actually works. If light is pushed up more the further away an object is, that seems like it would do the opposite of make distant objects vanish - it'd be harder for lower, nearer objects to blot out a more distant one.
Maybe he means the electromagnetic accelerator below the Earth attracts it and pulls light down? Which would keep the more distant light from reaching you, but the direction it'd been seen in would be wrong. I swear you need light to curve in a u shape. Hm. There might need to be two variables.

Quote from: Stash on February 17, 2023, 08:41:48 AM

Quote from: Slime on February 17, 2023, 02:03:13 AM

Quote from: Stash on February 17, 2023, 01:01:16 AM

There's EA and UA, but I get them confused. EA seems to pertain to bendy light and UA pertains to gravity. But maybe they connect somehow.

In any case, what needs to occur is an application of the constant to real world observations with predictable results. Like calculating the bend and how far a below lit cloud needs to be when the Sun above is bending it's rays upward. Why doesn't it happen all of the time? And perhaps why isn't the overhang on a porch lit up from the underside due to bendy light, etc. Under what calculable circumstances would it be or not. etc.

All the constant shows is that something, anything, can curve. Could be applied to a steel i-beam as well as a sun beam, given, I guess, some unkown quantity of dark energy.

From what I've seen, EAT is Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory, just a subset of UA with a specific property claimed about the accelerator.
And that sounds about right, just presumably the constant is such that the effect is small for light that travels a limited horizontal distance. Unless you had a really long porch, the effect would be negligible.
But yeah. One could probably get an approximation for the constant with a measurement.

So that should be pretty easy then for say, a sunset. Use the 3000 mile high sun, measure how far away the sun is from you just as it's setting. Plug in the constant and you're good to go. As well, calculate such thoughout the day from sunrise to sunset. Again, should be easy. I don't know why it hasn't been done.

Hypothetically can be done with a ship going over the horizon too. At least nets a ballpark figure, even if one might not know both x and y in perfect detail.
Though I will admit I'm not 100% convinced the Bishop variation actually works. If light is pushed up more the further away an object is, that seems like it would do the opposite of make distant objects vanish - it'd be harder for lower, nearer objects to blot out a more distant one.
Maybe he means the electromagnetic accelerator below the Earth attracts it and pulls light down? Which would keep the more distant light from reaching you, but the direction it'd been seen in would be wrong. I swear you need light to curve in a u shape. Hm. There might need to be two variables.

All in all it's kind of fuzzy and impracticable. Seems a lot simpler if light just generally travels in a straight line. Too many hoops to jump through otherwise. Especially considering we need an unknown dark energy to push or pull as it's pushing up earth to create a gravity effect all to just explain what we see everyday all over the world - The sun rising up from or dipping down below a horizon. Gonna go with Occam's at this point.

Though I will admit I'm not 100% convinced the Bishop variation actually works. If light is pushed up more the further away an object is, that seems like it would do the opposite of make distant objects vanish - it'd be harder for lower, nearer objects to blot out a more distant one.
Maybe he means the electromagnetic accelerator below the Earth attracts it and pulls light down? Which would keep the more distant light from reaching you, but the direction it'd been seen in would be wrong. I swear you need light to curve in a u shape. Hm. There might need to be two variables.

It's actually the opposite.

With something accelerating light upwards, it will curve up. i.e. initially light going down at some angle will go to a shallower and shallower angle until eventually it starts going upwards.
This means the light from the object will hit your eye from a lower angle than the line directly to the object.
This will make it appear lower than it is.
And importantly, that means eventually the light path would need to pass through Earth to reach you.



Conversely, if light was accelerated downwards, then it curves down, then the opposite happens, so the object appears higher.
This allows objects that should be blocked by an object to still appear as the light can start going up and over the object before curving down.

Hypothetically can be done with a ship going over the horizon too. At least nets a ballpark figure, even if one might not know both x and y in perfect detail.

The part which makes it problematic (which I'm sure they know) is that it is claimed as an approximation.
So for something near Earth where the distance covered is small, it wouldn't work.

But ignoring that, we can try with something like Polaris.
We can note that differentiating the function we get y'=(xb/c^2)^(1/3)

(note: sign is due to how I was doing it, focusing on Polaris at x-0, and looking at locations to the right)

So for a latitude of 45 degrees, where y'=1, that gives us:
-1=(xb/c^2)^1/3
-1=xb/c^2
x=-c^2/b.

So if Earth didn't block the way, the light would be horizontal a distance of -c^2/b away horizontally.
This means it must be horizontal at a distance of:
(3/4)*(x ^4*b/c^2)^(1/3)
=(3/4)*((-c^2/b)^4*b/c^2)^(1/3)
=(3/4)*((c^8/b^4)*b/c^2)^(1/3)
=(3/4)*((c^6/b^3))^(1/3)
=(3/4)*(c^2/b)
away vertically (below).

This means it will follow a formula of:
y-(3/4)*(c^2/b) = (3/4)*((x-c^2/b)^4*b/c^2)^(1/3)

Or for more a more general case, if you need light to be travelling at an angle of a as it cuts through the ground, this means:
y'=-tan(a)=(xb/c^2)^1/3
-tan(a)=(xb/c^2)^1/3
-tan(a)^3=xb/c^2
x=-tan(a)^3*c^2/b

y=(3/4)*((-tan(a)^3*c^2/b)^4*b/c^2)^(1/3)
=(3/4)*((tan(a)^12*c^8/b^4)*b/c^2)^(1/3)
=(3/4)*((tan(a)^12*c^6/b^3))^(1/3)
=(3/4)*tan(a)^4*c^2/b

Anyway, doing that I get this:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/lfhky8uh1s

And while altering the constant will change where they meet, they will never all line up.

It's actually the opposite.

With something accelerating light upwards, it will curve up. i.e. initially light going down at some angle will go to a shallower and shallower angle until eventually it starts going upwards.
This means the light from the object will hit your eye from a lower angle than the line directly to the object.
This will make it appear lower than it is.
And importantly, that means eventually the light path would need to pass through Earth to reach you.

The bit I was having an issue with is that the light seems to necessarily reach your eyes, in a way that light curving downwards wouldn't. Like, even the absolute lowest point on a distant object will have a light wave reflected parallel to the Earth, which is never going to go into the Earth, and as it's travelling further it will always curve more than light that reflects off the Earth. You end up with a weird discontinuity of light that reaches up over your head (which makes sense with respect to seeing further from higher up), but also starts out lower, and nothing physical actually interrupting it.
Which. Hm. I guess the way to visualise it to make it work would be something like a (in a 2D depiction) semicircle of where the light emanated from a point reaches, and modelling movement on the x-axis would basically tilt that semicircle, until it reaches the point where it goes up over your head. A shadow cast by whatever's directly beneath the object in question preventing light from moving through it.

Yeah, curving up does work better, though it also feels like it'd provide situations where you could see further past an obstruction than you ought to be able to on a sphere with light managing to curve up over it, and still reach your eye, rather than travelling in a straight line. Which I guess is why FEers would claim for observations like the Bedford Level too? Which, ooh, interesting.

But yeah, the issue with Bishop's formula, especially taking the stars, is whether multiple observations would give the same constant or if they need to start adding other factors.