24.5.2001, 11am-12pm No.2 from 12 to 14cm, no.3 over 14cm higher
07.04.2001, 6pm Both no.2 and no.3 about 16cm higher
07.05.2001, midnight to 2am No.2 8cm higher, no.3 0cm (no difference)
07.05.2001, 8-9am No.2 8cm, no.3 12cm higher
05.7.2001, 5-6pm No.2 16cm, no.3 18cm higher
Making this statement means you have proof and can share it with us?
Otherwise its a big hoax, and fake
Making this statement means you have proof and can share it with us?
Otherwise its a big hoax, and fake
What statement did Tom make? It is simply a thread about an alternative theory that has been around in FE circles for a long time.
If you have nothing useful to add to the discussion, then don't bother posting in the upper fora. Warned.
In a previous thread I made a comment that nautical tables have been used for years are accurate and are have been proved to work. His reply was “prove it, you made the claim back it up”Tom is not making a claim. I'm pretty sure he's not an EAT proponent.
Of course he was not warned but when I ask for proof, i get warned? Double standards?
Or is it a case of Tom just copied another theory, and posted it without making any direct claims?He didn't copy anything, either.
The home page does make some suggestions to avoid believing what one finds on the internet or you tube.It does indeed.
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
In a previous thread I made a comment that nautical tables have been used for years are accurate and are have been proved to work. His reply was “prove it, you made the claim back it up”Tom is not making a claim. I'm pretty sure he's not an EAT proponent.
Of course he was not warned but when I ask for proof, i get warned? Double standards?Or is it a case of Tom just copied another theory, and posted it without making any direct claims?He didn't copy anything, either.The home page does make some suggestions to avoid believing what one finds on the internet or you tube.It does indeed.
(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).
Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.
Let me remind you: This doesn't explain Twilight or Shadow of Horizon.
(Nor explains few other things...)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2im75sn.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).
Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.
Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.Let me remind you: This doesn't explain Twilight or Shadow of Horizon.
(Nor explains few other things...)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2im75sn.png)
Under the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory all light curves upwards.
There are also rays which miss the earth and make a u-turn back into space. The illustration in my first post only shows those rays which hit the earth. There will also be rays which miss the earth slightly. This is what causes clouds to appear to be lit from below after the sun is below the horizon in some photographs. This is also what causes the tops of mountains and skyscrapers to be illuminated, while the base is in shadow.
Per twilight after the sun sets, that is caused by light reflecting off of the atmosphere.
All of these phenomenons are explainable under this theory, and trivially so.
(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).
Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.
Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.
[...]
Perfect !
Now, note the last beam that ends at 6pm just before the observer.
Next, draw the beam that will hit that top edge of the horizon shadow.
Finally, explain where would go beams that shine between them.
(How will they miss the observer?)
Second question: does light bend left-right as well?
Which mechanism explains simultaneous sunrise observations depicted below?
Now add directions of sunsets on the other side of North pole.
Does light bend left, or right?
http://i66.tinypic.com/kz4wm.png
Introducing Bendy Light will make every Flat Earther bend light the way they need, and it will surely make them conflict with each other.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.
Yeah so instead of using simple geometry and science that explains everything about lights, stars, eclipse and so on, you think that a (somewhat) complex and completely counter-intuitive theory about light bending "upward" (what is "up"?) is completely believable?
At this point, I'm sure I come up with all kind of crazy theories like this that explains everything all by myself.
What do you want us to say?
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.
Firstly, there is no Flat Earth map, so I am not sure why you need me to explain something about a map that we have not adopted. That map is just for illustration purposes.
Secondly, we would require you to submit records of those observations if you want any traction with these arguments of "what should happen if the earth were a globe."
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.
So, you are saying that those beams inbetween will...
I'm asking you to explain things to yourself.
Are you "zetetic" enough?
I already devoted the whole thread to explaining how to develop and test tool for obtaining Sun-related data.
Use it.
I use SunCalc.org
You don't have to trust it.
Test whichever you want.
When people say "question everything", it doesn't mean "question globe only, and believe blindly what we tell you for Flat model". :)
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.
So, you are saying that those beams inbetween will...
Please more clearly explain what you mean by "beams inbetween." In between what?
QuoteI'm asking you to explain things to yourself.
Are you "zetetic" enough?
I already devoted the whole thread to explaining how to develop and test tool for obtaining Sun-related data.
Use it.
I use SunCalc.org
You don't have to trust it.
Test whichever you want.
When people say "question everything", it doesn't mean "question globe only, and believe blindly what we tell you for Flat model". :)
Suncalc.org appears to be a calculator, not a list of observations.
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.
If you read through our Phases of the Moon article (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) you will find that the height of the sun and moon is not static, and that they are rising and falling in altitude to create the phases on the moon. If they are rising and falling to create the phases, it is unrealistic that they are always at the same or very similar altitudes.
Also, the word "approximately" is a synonym of "more or less" and "in the neighborhood of." See: Google dictionary. (https://www.google.com/search?q=approximitely)
The results would be 3226 - 3750 miles for the Moon and 3364 - 3481 miles for the Sun, clearly well within the range to be right next to each other (and colliding, one 4311 of a cosmic dance going on in FE land, BTW). Ultimately, your suggestion of decreasing the Moon's altitude doesn't match the established data obtained by TFES via observation.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
[omitted]
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs. [emphasis added]
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
Also, why is this effect described as "light bending upwards"... If you take your sun as an example, rather than light going straight to the viewer, it is being pulled DOWNWARDS...No, it isn't.
Also, why is this effect described as "light bending upwards"... If you take your sun as an example, rather than light going straight to the viewer, it is being pulled DOWNWARDS...No, it isn't.
So wouldn't the sun appear as a tiny dot to all viewers given only a fraction of the light is curving towards them? The only light entering your eye would be from less than a pupil-width spot of light from the sun?No, the Sun is not a laser. But yes, it stands to reason that not all light rays would reach you, personally. This is true regardless of EA, and does not affect the perceived size of the object.
If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from youGiven that this is not the case, the rest of your deduction becomes irrelevant.
How would it not effect the perceived size? If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from you, then THAT is perceived size? You could think of the sun as a shower head right? If only the drops at the edge of the shower head reach your "eye", then you haven't see the rest of the shower head yes?I don't accept the "Electromagnetic Accelerator", but I don't see that it affects the amount of the sun's disc that can be seen.
If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from youGiven that this is not the case, the rest of your deduction becomes irrelevant.
Your showerhead analogy assumes that the Sun is an array of lasers, which it is not.
Huh? The EA theory specifically shows light going downwards like a laser.No, it doesn't.
If light was going on all directions, then why not draw a diagram that shows that?Because it would be absolutely and thoroughly unreadable.
Also EA specifically shows that light at the edge curves towards distant viewers.Yes.
So if you DON'T believe that light from the sun starts by pointing straight downwards (like laser array)I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?
(https://i.imgur.com/jZc4bge.png)I'm going to focus on just one ray in your proposed diagram, and I'll ask you a simple question to help my understanding of what you're proposing.
I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?
I don't know how Pete Svarrior will answer, but here are my thoughts on the matter.I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?
I am trying as hard as i can to get more information from you that I can listen to. You're asking me to explain to you why the contradiction I've given doesn't fit the EA diagram?? That's my point: what you're saying is inconsistent with what I know about EA (which is very little: it just seems to be that one diagram?)
Let's try another tack... let's assume EA is true. The rays of light starting from the sun, are they more like the first picture (emenating from the centre) or the second picture (essentially random in all directions). And remember: we're assuming ea to be TRUE, so I realise that after their initial direction, they would curve upwards as you're explained.
Centric:
(https://i.imgur.com/rgInZgY.png)
Random:
(https://i.imgur.com/2e4yFKf.png)
You're asking me to explain to you why the contradiction I've given doesn't fit the EA diagram??No, I'm trying to get you to understand that what you're saying is internally inconsistent.
The rays of light starting from the sun, are they more like the first picture (emenating from the centre) or the second picture (essentially random in all directions).Neither accurately describes how light sources behave, regardless of whether you want to consider EA, FE or RE. That said, rabinoz is correct in that the bottom diagram is slightly less wrong.
but not behind or below the horizonThis is untrue. Eventually, some parts of the Sun would become invisible because all of the light emitted by them would curve away from the observer, rather than reach him. There is nothing tangential about it, because the acceleration is constant and upward. Making it something other than constant would create the problem you're describing.
That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.Oh, I see, by "tangential" you mean "at some point it is briefly tangential". Sure, for some light rays that will be the case sometimes.
When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth.So far, so good. We call this phenomenon "night".
So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.No, it wouldn't. Those light rays would never reach an observer.
Forget UA for a moment. Just consider light. Any given part of a light source will emit light in all possible directions.
I have no idea why you think this would be any different with EA, but it isn't.
The issue here isn't that you don't understand EA, but that you are completely lost as to what a constant upward acceleration would look like in any context.
I have no idea what EA theory is, simply putting down some possibilities seeing as the information is limitedAnd I already asked you to refrain from making things up - it will get you nowhere.
I'm well aware of what acceleration is: not lost in the slightest.Then please explain how your diagrams are consistent with the idea of constant upwards acceleration.
So again, going back to my image... if there is a force pushing light upwards, are there also forces pushing some light sideways?No.
Are you proposing EA as a complete alternative to perspective?No.
Or is it only an upwards force pulling light upwards?Nobody said it was a force, nor that only light would be affected.
If that's the case, why do train tracks converge? Why the lamps in my example move towards the middle? Is it just an extra force being applied on the light paths of "regular" perspective? (because this was presented as an alternative...)It was not presented as an alternative to perspective, and it is not one. It is an alternative explanation of sunrise and sunset from Rowbotham's perspective explanation.
If it is not a force, what is it?I didn't say it isn't one.
I'm not sure if light is seen here as electromagnetic wave.It is.
I already asked you to refrain from making things up - it will get you nowhere [...] It was not presented as an alternative to perspective, and it is not one. It is an alternative explanation of sunrise and sunset from Rowbotham's perspective explanation.
are you saying you now accept that the core principles of "RE Perspective" are beyond dispute and accepted fact?You continue trying to conflate my actions as a moderator with my personal views. The two are firmly separate, and I don't appreciate your repeated attempts at changing that. Naturally, I can't claim perfection, but I do make a conscious effort to leave my views out of my moderation.
Perhaps I misread: perhaps he too is saying it's just an additional effect to perspective.That is how it reads to me, but obviously I can't be completely certain.
So let's recap:I mean, on a technicality, yes, but if you're going to make a list of all things that I didn't make a definitive statement here due to them being off-topic, then you're going to need a much longer list. And it'll still be largely irrelevant.
- There might be "something" that bends light from the sun upwards
- It might not be a force but it might be a force
- It might only affect electromagnetic waves or it might affect other things
- There's an additional unknown explanation for why objects appear smaller in the distance
Is that about right?
There's very little information on it that I can see, so just wondering what the details are.You keep saying that. I'm honestly not sure why. Saying it over and over won't make it any less false.
There's very little information on it that I can see, so just wondering what the details are.You keep saying that. I'm honestly not sure why. Saying it over and over won't make it any less false.
There's a picture, and there's you're short responses. Have I missed something?Yes. A quick Google search reveals a couple of Wiki pages and discussion threads across both this forum and the old one. As others have pointed out, this is a very old theory.
I don't get why you're taking this so personally and acting so irritable.Neither of these things are taking place. I'm simply supplying you with factual statements.
Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards... then the top of the sun would disappear before the bottom of the sun right?Wrong. And, again, the Sun does not project light rays in a single direction.
And the problem given above: if you were on a mountain, you should be able to look down at the earth after sun set and see the sun appear between you and the earth. If some paths of light curve down and then back up in to the sky, then an observer would "see" some of those upward travelling light rays that didn't end up touching the earth. I understand the distances involved are huge and the maths is just a guess, but if this were the case, there would at least ONE photo of at least one spot of light from the sun appearing BELOW the horizon?This is an absurd suggestion, which, again, seems to assume that sunlight is somehow comparable to an array of lasers. The *actual* effects of light curving upwards in this fashion is that you'll expect sunset to occur later as your elevation increases - which is hardly a "problem" - and that you will still see some sunlight after the Sun has apparently dipped below the horizon in its entirety - again, hardly controversial.
And the problem given above: if you were on a mountain, you should be able to look down at the earth after sun set and see the sun appear between you and the earth. If some paths of light curve down and then back up in to the sky, then an observer would "see" some of those upward travelling light rays that didn't end up touching the earth. I understand the distances involved are huge and the maths is just a guess, but if this were the case, there would at least ONE photo of at least one spot of light from the sun appearing BELOW the horizon?
What part of "the sun has a top and a bottom" suggests i think that?None. But let's ask a more honest question. Which part of "Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards" suggests that you think they project light in a single direction?
As for the mountain idea: how is that absurd? If SOME rays of light are starting to go downwards then being pushed upwards, then you have that problem.No, that simply doesn't follow. Yes, some of the light will eventually stop reaching the observer. Specificially, those rays projected from the bottom of the Sun.
I think we've previously agreed that this "force" or whatever you want to call it is pulling upwards on ALL rays of light yes? (i.e. remember that time i drew a diagram showing rays of light that WEREN'T pulled upwards and you pointed out how silly that was?)Yes, that was rather silly. But you still seem fundamentally confused about the consequences of light rays being constantly accelerated upwards.
the point the sun "sets" is where the rays of light transition from being curved towards the viewer, to being curved up in to the sky yes?No.
the point the sun "sets" is where the rays of light transition from being curved towards the viewer, to being curved up in to the sky yes?No.
So when does sun set occur then?When the Sun appears to dip below the horizon.
So when does sun set occur then?When the Sun appears to dip below the horizon.
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
Are we still debating EA theory here? Are you debating on the side of supporting EA theory?I'm not necessarily supporting anything, merely clarifying.
Can you draw a picture or describe what you mean in more detail?Not immediately, but I can give it a shot when I have some time
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
It may help a bit if you don't look on the lines on the Electromagnetic Accelerator diagram as rays leaving the sun but from the other direction as the direction an observer would perceive the sun.(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.
Unless, at those angles where that would happen is where the spotlight effect takes over.
Edit:
4 hot air balloons: A, B, C, and D
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/292tht5.jpg)
Which one(s) would see the sun in this graphic and, if seeing it, where would they perceive it to be?
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)
But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.
What are you trying to say? There are very clearly no rays of light in that diagram which reach the observer. This is exactly the EA explanation for sunset.SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?
It may help a bit if you don't look on the lines on the Electromagnetic Accelerator diagram as rays leaving the sun but from the other direction as the direction an observer would perceive the sun.
So, for your balloons, the directions have not yet been defined, but would, presumably, match "reality".
From directly below the sun it appears directly overhead but from other locations the sun is not seen as being in its geometric location but lower.
Every point on the sun can still radiate light in all directions.
SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?
Can you please try to form meaningful sentences? It's hard to guess at what meaning your word soup might have been intended to convey.Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?
There are only two rays in that diagram to which the Earth's surface is a tangent, and those are the sunrise and sunset points.
It doesn't make any sense to describe these light rays as tangent to the Earth, because the rays are curved and the Earth is not. A tangent to a straight line is just that straight line itself.
Nearer to the Sun, the rays strike the Earth at an oblique angle, until you get directly under the Sun and the rays are perpendicular to the Earth. Farther from the Sun than the sunrise/sunset point, there is no path a light ray can take to get from the Sun to the Earth's surface except by going through the Earth itself. Since the Earth is opaque, these paths cannot be taken.
All of the diagrams thus far posted illustrate this idea, even if the specific curvature depicted is inaccurate. I do not understand why it needs to be made so complicated.
How about this?
Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ppnbix.jpg)
One should just focus on the light, that is bound upwards.Why would we focus on the light that nobody can see?
Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.No, this is quite simply not the case.
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.
No, this is quite simply not the case.
Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"
If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"The ones that end up producing the image of the Sun on your optical device of choice's retina.
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"The ones that end up producing the image of the Sun on your optical device of choice's retina.
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.Oh. I see. You're asking about the little bit of light you'll see shortly after a sunset, or immediately before sunrise.
So light rays have different intensities depending on the angle under which they are emitted from the sun? Or does it mean the angular dependence of the light emitted from the sun is not homogeneous?No. As I'm sure you remember, I've asked you bear in mind that we're not dealing with lasers here. Light disperses.
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.Oh. I see. You're asking about the little bit of light you'll see shortly after a sunset, or immediately before sunrise.
Of course, it would take a pretty tall mountain for you to be able to see sunrise 2 hours in advance (you're looking at about 180km!), but I'll humour you and your little space elevator. The answer is: yes, you will see this fairly frequently. Nearly every day, dare I say. The Sun will indeed appear to be hiding behind the Earth, and the light will be coming from somewhere down-ish.So light rays have different intensities depending on the angle under which they are emitted from the sun? Or does it mean the angular dependence of the light emitted from the sun is not homogeneous?No. As I'm sure you remember, I've asked you bear in mind that we're not dealing with lasers here. Light disperses.
I'm asking about your relevant rays that are more luminous and numerous. Are those the little bit of light seen shortly after a sunset or immediately before sunrise? Whatever that is? I've seen thousands of sunsets and never seen any little bit of sun after sunset. Hence, it wouldn't be sunset.Oh. I see. You're asking about the little bit of light you'll see shortly after a sunset, or immediately before sunrise.Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"The ones that end up producing the image of the Sun on your optical device of choice's retina.
Of course, it would take a pretty tall mountain for you to be able to see sunrise 2 hours in advance (you're looking at about 180km!), but I'll humour you and your little space elevator.Thank you, Pete. That's very kind of you to humor me in using a cartoon diagram that isn't to scale and that I never meant to suggest was a practical depiction of real world details. But I'm just trying to apprehend this EA concept and how it is so obvious to you but my dense brain isn't getting it. Appreciate your patience.
The answer is: yes, you will see this fairly frequently. Nearly every day, dare I say. The Sun will indeed appear to be hiding behind the Earth, and the light will be coming from somewhere down-ish.You lost me again. The sun appears to be hiding? Can the sun be seen or not? We're not talking about sunlight illuminating other things. We're talking about the sun itself. Can we see it or can't we? That's what sunset is. The earth is obstructing our view of the sun. Is it because the earth is curved and its rotation is putting the sun behind the curve? Or is the earth flat and upward bending light gets obstructed at the point where it is tangent to the earth's surface?
I'm asking about your relevant rays that are more luminous and numerous.That comment was based on a misunderstanding of your position. That's why I moved on from it.
But I've never seen any little bit of light of the sun that appears after sunset. (Reflected/scattered light of twilight, of course, or illuminating clouds...but the rays of the sun? They're gone at the moment of sunset.)So you haven't, but you also have. Fascinating.
Thank you, Pete. That's very kind of you to humor me in using a cartoon diagram that isn't to scale and that I never meant to suggest was a practical depiction of real world details. But I'm just trying to apprehend this EA concept and how it is so obvious to you but my dense brain isn't getting it. Appreciate your patience.Well, the problem is that you can either take it to your 180km extreme, or admit that you're worrying yourself with things like "sometimes the horizon appears 1 degree below eye level". One of these things is comically irrelevant, and the other is entirely unsurprising. A true Catch-22.
The sun appears to be hiding? Can the sun be seen or not?In the particular scenario you posited, the Sun would appear to be partially hidden behind the Earth. Neither answer you've suggested is correct.
Light "coming from somewhere down-ish." Huh? No. You're not getting it. I'm not talking about the sun after sunsetYou're talking about the Sun after sunset when observed from space. Of course it will appear to be somewhere roughly down from you. You're hundreds of kilometres away from the Earth.
No. I'm talking about seeing the sun still, even after it's supposedly "hiding."That, quite simply, is not a consequence of EAT.
I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.Not quite, but it's the least wrong thing you've said so far. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're about to try and interpret the perceivable "bottom" of the Sun as its "top", but let's see where you take it.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.
Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?
I can't take it anywhere until you provide the right answer, and not affirm that my proposed answer is the "least wrong thing."I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.Not quite, but it's the least wrong thing you've said so far. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're about to try and interpret the perceivable "bottom" of the Sun as its "top", but let's see where you take it.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.
Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?
Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?
Tangent means the ray isn't obstructed. Tangent means the ray continues on and continues to curve.
Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?
Okay. So it's the flat earth that's tangent to those two rays, which are then not obstructed, by definition of what it means to be tangent.
But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.
Because it's a weird concept. Does my diagram illustrate the concept too? (It's one of the "all" but maybe you meant all, excluding mine?
Are there more rays than that last ones that are tangent to the earth, marking as you say sunrise and sunset?
Are the more that are not tangent, that don't reach the earth's surface but keep curving upward?
Like in my diagram?
Here's a real world example, that doesn't require hyperbole of "space elevators" or 2 hour time differences.
I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.
Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?
There are also rays which miss the earth and make a u-turn back into space. The illustration in my first post only shows those rays which hit the earth. There will also be rays which miss the earth slightly. This is what causes clouds to appear to be lit from below after the sun is below the horizon in some photographs. This is also what causes the tops of mountains and skyscrapers to be illuminated, while the base is in shadow.
Per twilight after the sun sets, that is caused by light reflecting off of the atmosphere.
All of these phenomenons are explainable under this theory, and trivially so.
But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.
Correct. The same prediction is made by RET. You can even observe this yourself, if you'd care to take an aeroplane ride around sunset.
I shall, then, because neither of us is comprehending the other.Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?
If that would help you to convey your point, then go right ahead. I would also be satisfied with you writing coherent English.
Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?That's what Pete was saying too but I don't agree... in EA, sunset is not occuring when light is obstructed by the earth, sunset is occuring when light is curved upwards away from the observer. There are many rays that do travel downwards and hit the earth, just like any observer at any time of the day will see those light rays bending down to them. We know the earth obstructs that light, because things on the earth are illuminated. But at sunset, those rays of light, according to EA, are curving so much as to be tangential to the surface, so the sun appears in the distance "level" with the horizon, and then after that time, because the light is now curving upwards away from the observer, then the sun is no longer visible. So it's not invisible because the light rays are being obstructed, it's invisible because the light rays are not reaching the observer.
How is this not the case? Can you please draw a diagram?Quote from: hexagonAny observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.No, this is quite simply not the case.
So the relevant light rays, as you mentioned else where in the post, are the ones that actually strike your image plane e.g. your retina right? So a rough explanation of how a lens works: it "ignores" all other incedental light rays, and only the light rays hitting the lens from a limited number of angles will end up passing through and being focused on your retina.Quote from: hexagonWhy is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
Quote from: Bobby ShaftoSunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?That's what Pete was saying too but I don't agree... in EA, sunset is not occuring when light is obstructed by the earth, sunset is occuring when light is curved upwards away from the observer...
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.
Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Because "up" only has meaning relative to your own orientation, on a globe earth "up" in Australia is opposite to "up" in the UK.Right, but the Earth is flat, and "up" is largely universal.
Bobby, are you somehow assuming that your vision would be "objectively straight"...I don't know what that means. Yes? I'm assuming if a curved ray intercepts our retina, we perceive the origin of that ray as being straight out from our retina.
Obviously the scale is exaggerated but the diagram is basically correct isn't it?No.
the two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.Eh. The two paragraphs address two different ways in which Bobby is wrong - one attacks his assumptions, the other his lack of internal consistency. The second paragraph is perhaps unnecessary, but you know I like to be thorough.
Your eye can't tell the path the light has travelled to get to you.Indeed, but your interpretation of the world is centered entirely around everything else you can see - our perception of what is "straight" will necessary follow the curvature of the light. The projected light does not stop curving after it's reflected, which is why your reflection in the mirror does not appear to be (marginally) lower down than you are. In Bobby's outer-space diagram, the cosmonaut in question will see the Sun as located next to the Earth.
Are you able to fix the diagram?The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.
What? But how can it? The light has bent and because of that it hits your eye at a different angle and hits the retina in a different place.Assuming that by "different angle" and "different place" you mean compared to a straight light model, sure. But the model remains internally consistent.
That is how you work out where things are.Your point?
I thought this was an explanation for sunset and actually works quite well, if the sun is above the flat earth but the light is bent enough that it is coming at your horizontally then you'll see the sun at the horizon.Not quite. The horizon will simply appear to curve slightly, and the Sun will eventually dip behind it.
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.That is how you work out where things are.Your point?
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?
If the light is bent such that it comes at me in an upward direction then I see it below me.Yes. In Bobby's extreme outer space scenario, the Sun will appear either next to or behind the Earth, and largely downwards from you.
Consider the sun reflected in a puddle of water. The sun looks like it's below me, in the puddle.This is precisely because the inexplicable straightening you just proposed does not occur. If your proposed change were implemented, you'd see the Sun in some completely unpredictable location.
Are you able to fix the diagram?The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?
This is a vague question, but since we were talking about its position relative to the horizon, I'll assume that's what you mean. The Sun appears to be above the horizon.
Are you able to fix the diagram?The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.
How can that be?Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?
This is a vague question, but since we were talking about its position relative to the horizon, I'll assume that's what you mean. The Sun appears to be above the horizon.
The entire point of this diagram:No.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
...is to provide a flat earth explanation for why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is.
High content post there. Care to elaborate? Parsifal? Is Pete right? Maybe your "no" is in response to my use of the phrase "entire point" because there are other useful points to be drawn from the diagram in addition to showing why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is?The entire point of this diagram:No.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
...is to provide a flat earth explanation for why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is.
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
Only problem is I've seen no evidence presented that it actually exists as an effect.
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.
How can that be?
How can that be?
I have already explained that, to which you responded by claiming that you weren't making the misinterpretation that you are now making again. I doubt I would be any more successful the second time.
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.
I think this is the comparison/equivalency Pete was trying to make:It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.
That’s a bit of a silly comparison.
Nothing is making the light shoot anywhere in the round earth model. The light goes in straight lines and the earth is curved so over distance yes, a light which starts parallel ground will “rise”, but it’s not the light that is rising, it’s the ground that is curving away. Hence the result in the boat and laser experiment. But this is all well understood and that experiment is verification of it.
There is no law of physics that says that ALL light is deflected upwards by some force. This is just a FE attempt to fudge things to explain observations. And it’s fair enough to make a hypothesis which explains observations but you have to follow that up with experiments. What experiments have been done which show this is a real effect?
How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)
So sorry. Not sinking in.How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)
Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.
Oh, wait. The green line is the flat earth surface. The horizon "always rises to eye level" (or doesn't it?) so the horizon is above the green line and would be a dot, coming out of the page/screen if the blue dot is the observer.So sorry. Not sinking in.How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)
Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.
Isn't the green line the horizon? Isn't the light ray's correspondence to the horizon the dotted line of apparent sun location relative to said horizon? In the upper diagram, the sun appears above the horizon because the slope of the light ray is still downward. In the lower diagram, the slope of the light ray is upward, which puts the apparent sun location...where? Still above the horizon?
Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Maybe this will sink in the fifth [sic] time you read it.Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
I don't understand why you're trying to mix EAT with the theory it's directly opposing. Would you care to clarify what you're trying to achieve by this?Why? I asked you to elaborate on your low-content "no" post and you ignored it.
Also, while it's no secret that I disagree with Tom most of the time, Parsifal and I are saying exactly the same things, just approaching the subject from slightly different perspectives. Your confusion stems from the fact that you fail to adjust for *all* light curving.You are, eh?
So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?No.
Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too.Tom is not an EAT proponent.
You are, eh?Yes. You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?No.
Maybe not before, but he's sure putting on a show of support on this and the other neighboring derailed topic.Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too.Tom is not an EAT proponent.
No. You've been in contradiction to what Parsifal was saying and you don't even realize it.You are, eh?Yes. You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
\You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.This was Parsifal's illustration. Not mine.
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".
Maybe not before, but he's sure putting on a show of support on this and the other neighboring derailed topic.I can't help you with that. I'm not Tom, and it doesn't appear that he's involved in this discussion. "B-but Tom said a thing!" is not an argument I'm really interested in.
(See? I can just gainsay as well as you.)Except you're trying to tell me what I mean by my own words. I'm trying to tell you to stop telling us what we mean by our words. It's not so much "doing something as well as I am" as it is "doing the opposite of what I'm doing". Of course, you have every right to do so, but it won't advance this conversation, nor your understanding of the subject.
This was Parsifal's illustration. Not mine.Regardless of whether this is true, or who made the illustration, using it the way you're using it is utter madness. I don't understand your obsession with arguments from authority. "But Tom! But Parsifal!" No. We don't care. Discuss ideas, not individuals.
Pete, can you not see how that would confuse a stupid person?Yes, ample evidence of this has been provided.
There's no indication that this is an idea that only some FE proponents believe.Do we really have to have another "Yes, the Wiki is a work in progress" conversation? We both know this. No need to turn every thread into a Wiki whinge.
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.
On a round earth you need no "dark energy" to bend the light or the earth away...Dark Energy bending the light or the Earth? What the hell?
After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".
Hmm. This is a strange thing to say. It's like rejecting the concept of truth.Not quite. It's a functional epistemology, just one that's different from what you might find intuitive. It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.
Once that has been established then it becomes "truth", an axiom on which you can build, no?No. And that goes for both sides. RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over. There are no axioms here - it's just that one side has the honesty to admit it
It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.But horizon dip has been empirically tested by Bobby - other experiments have been posted which show the same result.
RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over.Not if they actually tally with observations. I reject Tom's model of perspective and horizon dip because it is demonstrably wrong.
After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.
After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.
For hexagon's experiment to work, we'd have to align the mirrors so that they're physically parallel. Or, in RE terms, slightly out of alignment with one another.
After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.
Good point Hex! That would seem to be a pretty simple experiment. Pete I'm not sure if you don't understand what he said or if you're just trying to be difficult. Yes, if the mirrors weren't perfectly parallel the light would escape in the direction of the "larger gap". Yes if he adjusted for the curvature of the earth then the plates wouldn't be parallel... but why would he do that?? If he's testing for a flat earth, then perpendicular plates would be also be perfectly parallel yes? It's also pretty common practise in any scientific experiment to focus on certain elements and remove things that would otherwise affect the experiment... If the mirrors are perfectly parallel, and EA is true, then light should escape through the top. To be fair, to my knowledge, it's impossible to ensure the plates are perfectly parallel, but you would be able to account for that experimentally i.e. even if light was found to escape from them not being perfectly parallel, then you could just "spin" the experiment, and expect to see MORE light escaping e from the top right?
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.
BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
Anyway, currently we have an job opening for a position in laser optic experiments. If you're interested, I can send you the link for the application page. Seems we overlooked a lot of things up to know, maybe you can help us...Thank you for your offer, but I'm quite happy with my current position in academia, and am not looking to respecialise.
Do you have some other definition for parallel mirrors beyond "Two mirrors who are equidistant from each other at all points"? Or alternatively "A set of mirrors whereupon any two long edges are equidistant from each other at all points along the edge"? The first assumes two mirrors facing one another, the second assumes mirrors arranged in a circle for some reason and oriented such that, with a mirror in the shape of a rectangle, the short edges point 'down' and 'up' but their orientation is only relevant in regards to other mirrors in the circle. Meaning 'down' and 'up' do not need to refer to the direction of the Earth's surface.Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
Do you have some other definition for parallel mirrors beyond "Two mirrors who are equidistant from each other at all points"? Or alternatively "A set of mirrors whereupon any two long edges are equidistant from each other at all points along the edge"? The first assumes two mirrors facing one another, the second assumes mirrors arranged in a circle for some reason and oriented such that, with a mirror in the shape of a rectangle, the short edges point 'down' and 'up' but their orientation is only relevant in regards to other mirrors in the circle. Meaning 'down' and 'up' do not need to refer to the direction of the Earth's surface.Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
I'm mean you have some many applications where it is extremely crucial to be sure about your alignment of your light, x-ray, Thz or microwave, etc. beams down to atomic length scales, and no one has ever noticed an asymmetry in the vertical direction on propagation of the beams...Interesting - given that the Round Earth is supposed to be in motion, by your own claim simply rotating the setup should completely break it. After all, if everything has to be calculated at atomic length scales then the very slight motion of the setup will be a very significant factor.
The incredibly small effect of EAT will be well within the margin of error for the experimental setup.How can you call EA a 'small effect' though? It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me. Certainly something that should be noticeable even presuming an error margin of much less than Hexy is claiming I would think. Or don't you agree? If you don't, why not?
It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me.What makes you think that this is the case?
Oh right, you believe the Sun is still significant distance away or some such don't you? As EA would also prevent accurate height estimates. Actually I suppose that means we would have no real idea how far away it is wouldn't it? I feel we should be able to get an estimate, but I don't know the math well enough to be sure how to do it.It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me.What makes you think that this is the case?
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.
Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
I'm trying not to think of it like a laser. To understand what it would look like if seeing the light from the sun after it has curved upward, I use the analogy of an inferior mirage. In that case, you may still be seeing the source of light via a direct path, but you are also seeing light from a curved path that was directed downward and then, due to atmospheric effects, curves upward to the eye. As a result, you see the object(s) via their direct light path, but also see the mirage that is below the horizon.Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.
Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
The problem lies in this we are thinking about this as if each line from the sun is representing a stream of photons or a lazer like the video attached.
The problem with testing this is that sun does not emit light like the video shown below in one concentrated beam going in one direction. The sun emits light more like a light bulb.
I'm trying not to think of it like a laser. To understand what it would look like if seeing the light from the sun after it has curved upward, I use the analogy of an inferior mirage. In that case, you may still be seeing the source of light via a direct path, but you are also seeing light from a curved path that was directed downward and then, due to atmospheric effects, curves upward to the eye. As a result, you see the object(s) via their direct light path, but also see the mirage that is below the horizon.
My stand is (was) that, in the case of the sun, there is no direct path in EA at such an oblique angle. Instead, all you may intercept is the "mirage"-like upward curving light, which -- like a mirage -- presents the object to the view below the horizon.
But that is if only the un-reflected light of the sun is curved. If all reflected light curves too, then anything illuminated will also be displaced in the y-axis, including the surface of the earth and, ergo, the horizon. So even though the sun light might be upward curving, so is the light from the horizon. So, in effect, EA replaces the curve of the earth's surface with curved light, and that would allow an explanation for why a flat earth might suggest curvature, contrary to the more standard FE argument that there is no appearance of curvature and that arguments for such appearance are misinterpreting the observations.
I shake my head at the perspective and "convergence zone" and "obscuring waves" arguments for things like ships or skylines or celestial objects disappearing beyond the horizon. But this curved light theory is intriguing and challenging (if looking solely at earth-bound phenomenon and excluding beyond-earth evidence as suspect). It strikes me as a sort of similar to the luminiferous aether, as in something that is postulated to exist but to explain natural phenomenon, but not (yet) detectable. I suppose dark energy fits into that sort of category too.
Something I've mulling over is, because the sun isn't a point source of light, wouldn't the appearance of the sun become distorted the greater the angle away from vertical? Again, looking at the sun through atmospheric effects that are light "bendy," the sun does get squashed, terraced, mirrored, stretched, etc. when at a low angle of incidence to the atmosphere. If UA was curving the light of the sun, at close to horizontal to the x-axis, wouldn't the difference between the middle and its edges be bending differently, causing the sun to elongate or squish? Not just within a few degrees of the horizon, but from 10 or 20 degrees elevation, I'd think we'd start seeing something less than spherical.
No?
Condescendingly asking me if I know what a frame of reference is doesn't helpI apologise. I never intentionally mean to offend or condescend, that's what makes this forum such a healthy place for debate (opposed to you tube etc). It's in everyone's interest to keep it civil and free of personal attacks.
- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?
- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?If the experiment is to determine which model is correct, then we need to understand the expected outcome for each experiment. I've described why I don't believe the experiment will be precise in either model.
I don't think the fact the earth is moving will affect that experiment.But if the Earth is round, then the velocity isn't constant, is it? Not if we're proposing atomic length scale of precision, for sure.
I think I finally understood the argument. [...]You've got it. We're looking at a setup with an extreme amount of variables. The appeal of oversimplifying it is obvious, but it massively detracts from the experiment's conclusiveness. The "noise" from multiple factors (FE or RE) would be greater than the "signal" we're trying to measure. And both the effect and the noise are so insignificant that we'd normally not bother with them in experimental setups.
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
I've come up with this from the above diagram to illustrate what I think EA explains about the phenomenological "setting" of a sun on a parallel plane above a flat earth:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/25ps4fl.jpg)
The solid lines are actual paths. The dotted lines are the perceived paths. The times and scale are notional, just to illustrate the concept.
The sun is emanating all of these rays simultaneously, but to an observer on the surface of the earth, the sun's passage overhead alters which rays he can see, and thus where he (or she) perceives the sun to be.
A solar noon (actual noon in the cartoon), the vertical rays of the sun are "straight up" (realizing that there is a z-axis too, but keeping it in the x- and y-axes for simplification). As the sun moves westward, the angled sunlight that becomes more and more curved due this theoretical EA, and the angle at which they reach the observers eye becomes more and more declined. Because of EA, less angled or directed sunlight doesn't reach the observer, so all he sees is the result of whatever curved light is coincident with his increase distance from point of solar noon on the earth.
Until, the flat earth becomes tangent to the sun's rays, here depicted at 7PM observer's time. The sun's rays will be parallel to the earth's surface, which will start to obstruct the sun.
However, reflected light curves also, so everything will appear to "dip" to some degree, including the horizon. With EA, the horizon DOESN'T rise to the height of the eye. It "dips" just as it would with a curved earth (and no EA "bendy light.") So this theoretical arrangement of sun/earth and "bendy" light could explain what we see at sunset (or sunrise) on a flat earth without resort to explanations of "perspective + convergence layer + magnifying lensing"
How's this look and sound?
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.
Did you notice how blurry all these images of the expanded lights are?A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.
EA can just use the standard explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset