#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« on: May 17, 2020, 03:41:04 PM »
I have many questions about the EA formula from the Wiki listed below.  If you're going to respond, this is what I would like to have explained.

y = 3/4 * root((b*x^4)/c^2,3)

It does not make any sense as it includes the speed of light, which is a velocity, so the answer will also be a velocity, not a position. It's actually worse as it uses c^2 so what does that even mean in the context of calculating a position? What's a square second? This makes the formula unusable for it's intended purpose, and I'd like an explanation.

I can see it is meant as an approximation of some more complicated math, but there is no information on what those are, how they were derived or what data was used to do so.

It also includes an undefined term "Bishop Constant" with little indication what it is, or how big.  A fraction? A large number? Small?

The rest of my post is examining the Wiki page for any clues as to how this formula can be used to back up any of the claims, listed for reference.

I'm sourcing my information from here - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

1. Theory

This seems to say that light must bend and curve because cars don't go in straight lines. It then uses the Moon Tilt Illusion as evidence, but this is an illusion so isn't a real effect, so I'm not sure why it's being used as evidence. Nothing about how to calculate or describe the bending.

1.1 Approximation

This is where an approximate formula is described, but without any references on what data was used to construct it, or what more complicated equations it is derived from.

It is the only place any numbers are presented.

2.1 Clouds Lit From Underside

This says that light curves to hit clouds from the underside. It's just a simple statement that once again boils down to "bendy light".

2.2 Horizon Dip

Again, claiming light bends up and so this can kind of explain the horizon but not really. Once more, just a statement that "light bends".

3.1 Nearside Always Seen

This says that light not only curves, but curves in different directions based on where the observer is? Again, it simply states that "light bends" but doesn't explain how all this bending still keeps the sun and moon looking like perfect spheres.

3.2 Lunar Phases

This is also extremely vague. It just states that curving light causes the phases, somehow. I see a picture of bendy lines and one of moon phases in a circle but this lacks any detail other than that the Sun sometimes can shine in ways to make shadows and then the light bends so everyone sees the same shadow. Nothing on how this can be plotted.

3.2.1   Moon Position Table

This just renames the lunar phases, it's not data.

3.3   Lunar Eclipse

This states that eclipses are caused by the moon moving above the Sun, so light must only go down from the Sun. No reason given.

4 Evidence

4.1 Celestial Sphere

This says that EA makes the sky look like it does, and so evidence is, the sky looks like it does. This again boils down to just a claim that EA is correct.

4.2 Moon Tilt Illusion

This is an illusion.  It's not a real effect.  Zero relevance.

In summary, all the 'theories' presented just say how "bendy light" could cause all kinds of effects, but nothing at all on how all these very different effects could work together or how. As I stated in another thread, I could claim bendy light makes all squares look like circles, and have about as much evidence to back that up as I found in the Wiki. Since I did not get any answers in this thread I've started one focused on my question to hopefully get some answers.

#### Groit

##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2020, 05:14:39 PM »
Does x and y have units m (metres)?

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2020, 05:32:12 PM »
Does x and y have units m (metres)?

Yes, the x is in length which we can assume meters since c is m/s but it's also got an exponent so its m^4 / c^2 and then you take the cube root of it so your y units would be something like m^(2/3)/s^(2/3) which still makes no sense.

#### Groit

##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2020, 05:39:08 PM »
If the Bishop constant had units m s-2  then i think y would have units in metres.
Still doesn't make any sense though

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2020, 05:51:22 PM »
Still doesn't make any sense though
What, exactly, "doesn't make any sense" in a simple statement of proportionality?

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2020, 05:56:32 PM »
Still doesn't make any sense though
What, exactly, "doesn't make any sense" in a simple statement of proportionality?

The unit's don't make sense.  Can you show me a ruler that measures in m^(2/3)/s^(2/3) for me?  That's what Y is.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2020, 06:05:43 PM »
The unit's don't make sense.
How did you conclude what the units are for this equation? And why do you think units matter in a simple explanation of proportionality? I cannot correct your error when you refuse to state it.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2020, 06:19:11 PM »
The unit's don't make sense.
How did you conclude what the units are for this equation? And why do you think units matter in a simple explanation of proportionality? I cannot correct your error when you refuse to state it.

It's algebra.  I'm not refusing to state anything, don't be so dramatic.

The speed of light c is in length/time units, commonly m/s.

So c2 is in units of m2/s2.

X is defined as "x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray" in the wiki, which is length, which we are already using meters for.

So x is in units of m4.

x4 / (m2/s2) = m2 * s2

Then you take the cube root and get m(2/3) * s(2/3)

Looks like I typo-ed a division for a multiplication earlier, but that doesn't make it make any more sense.

At what point do you disagree?  Is the speed of light not a speed or meters not a length?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2020, 07:16:25 PM »
At what point do you disagree?
Your response is incomplete. For some reason, you chose to ignore one of the factors. What is that reason?

I already hinted at this multiple times. You're looking at a proportional relation.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2020, 07:57:11 PM »
At what point do you disagree?
Your response is incomplete. For some reason, you chose to ignore one of the factors. What is that reason?

I already hinted at this multiple times. You're looking at a proportional relation.

It would be nice if you quit playing games and just said what your problem is. Do we get points for drawing things out and avoiding answers?

If you think I am ignoring something, just say it.  I'm looking at an equation that gives weird units. What do you think we are looking at?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2020, 08:18:18 PM »
It would be nice if you quit playing games and just said what your problem is.
Likewise. I can't tell you what is wrong about your reasoning when you keep not simply laying it out.

I'm looking at an equation that gives weird units.
Yes, if you choose to ignore some parts of the equation, your units will probably not match up. Doubly so if you ignore its intended purpose.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2020, 08:24:30 PM »
It would be nice if you quit playing games and just said what your problem is.
Likewise. I can't tell you what is wrong about your reasoning when you keep not simply laying it out.

I'm looking at an equation that gives weird units.
Yes, if you choose to ignore some parts of the equation, your units will probably not match up. Doubly so if you ignore its intended purpose.

I swear it's like pulling teeth trying to get actual answers out of you.

Ok... baby steps. So you say I ignored parts of the equation? Simple question... WHAT parts? What missing units fix this?

And please explain it's intended purpose. How is it used? Thanks.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2020, 09:00:21 PM »
So you say I ignored parts of the equation? Simple question... WHAT parts?
Okay, baby steps.

Let's see. You need to identify the units for:

y - check
x - check
c - check
β -

Why do I have to hand-hold you through this? Groit even already told you this. You might recall that it was him I was responding to.

And please explain it's intended purpose. How is it used? Thanks.
That's explained directly above the equation. Let's quote it for your benefit:

Quote
As there has been a long wait for a conclusive equation describing the Electromagnetic Acceleration theory, an approximate formula for large-scale bending has been authored and proposed by Parsifal. This is a limit of a more complex (and not yet final) expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.

Again, why must I hand-hold you through reading?

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2020, 09:17:59 PM »
So you say I ignored parts of the equation? Simple question... WHAT parts?
Okay, baby steps.

Let's see. You need to identify the units for:

y - check
x - check
c - check
β -

Why do I have to hand-hold you through this? Groit even already told you this. You might recall that it was him I was responding to.

And please explain it's intended purpose. How is it used? Thanks.
That's explained directly above the equation. Let's quote it for your benefit:

Quote
As there has been a long wait for a conclusive equation describing the Electromagnetic Acceleration theory, an approximate formula for large-scale bending has been authored and proposed by Parsifal. This is a limit of a more complex (and not yet final) expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.

Again, why must I hand-hold you through reading?

Perhaps you might benefit from reading too.  I mentioned that β constant in my very first post, right at the front. This is the opposite of ignoring it.

It also includes an undefined term "Bishop Constant" with little indication what it is, or how big.  A fraction? A large number? Small?

Please fill me in, what units are β measured in? I know you can't put a number to it but you have to know WHAT it's measuring, right? Cube inches? Pounds? Joules?

If you can't tell me what β is measuring, then how can you claim that formula has any value at all? It's just producing a meaningless number with crazy units that don't make sense.

I asked for it's purpose and how it's used. You answered the first, but ignored the second. Just how do you put numbers into that thing and get anything out of it?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2020, 09:31:47 PM »
I mentioned that β constant in my very first post, right at the front.
Mentioning it doesn't quite excuse you from including it in your units, does it?

As for the rest of the questions - if you don't want to read the writeup on EA, I won't do that work for you. You'll get there when you're ready.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2020, 09:59:14 PM »
I mentioned that β constant in my very first post, right at the front.
Mentioning it doesn't quite excuse you from including it in your units, does it?

As for the rest of the questions - if you don't want to read the writeup on EA, I won't do that work for you. You'll get there when you're ready.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually know what it is either and are just stalling. Why spend a hours writing a dozen back and forth messages when you could have just answered the first post?

For now I'm going to assume β is in m/s2 as that's the only thing that gives an answer in length. Maybe you can write it plainly in your Wiki.

That only leaves that the value β is undefined and still makes the equation unusable. You can't prove or disprove it, or EA without it.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2020, 10:54:19 PM »
Why spend a hours writing a dozen back and forth messages
Hours? Christ, how slow do you think my typing is? I've spent a few minutes here at best.

As for the reason, it's very simple. I am an idealist interested in people sorting out their cognitive abilities. I don't give a hoot if you find the answers you're looking for, but I sure am going to punish you for being intellectually lazy. All the information you want has already been laid out for you, but you're too busy complaining about your lack of ability to just sit down and work through it. But it's okay, you're learning, even if more slowly than the average noob here.

That only leaves that the value β is undefined and still makes the equation unusable. You can't prove or disprove it, or EA without it.
I already told you it describes a proportional relation. Several times, I recall. The article also clearly states that the value of β has yet to be derived experimentally. You don't need strong deductive skills to conclude something that's been said to you multiple times.

As for its usability, you can make accurate predictions based on the proportion itself. It's not particularly difficult to derive an approximate value of β, but that's not quite what you do if you want to perform Zetetic inquiry. Notably, plugging a placeholder value into the equation does not increase nor reduce its predictive capability, given the equation's intended purpose. You did read the snippet I quoted for you, right?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 10:58:50 PM by Pete Svarrior »

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2020, 11:04:50 PM »
That only leaves that the value β is undefined and still makes the equation unusable. You can't prove or disprove it, or EA without it.
I already told you it describes a proportional relation. Several times, I recall. The article also clearly states that the value of β has yet to be derived experimentally. You don't need strong deductive skills to conclude something that's been said to you multiple times.

As for its usability, you can make accurate predictions based on the proportion itself. It's not particularly difficult to derive an approximate value of β, but that's not quite what you do if you want to perform Zetetic inquiry. Notably, plugging a placeholder value into the equation does not increase nor reduce its predictive capability.

Uh. The only value of a formula is that you can use it to test predictions and observations.  If you don't know what numbers to plug in, it's completely useless.

The only thing that formula shows is that you can write an equation to make a line curve.  Congratulations, I can write a million others.  Now which one is true?

Calling it a "proportional relation" is just a fancy (or simple) way of saying you have an equation. It's the same thing, but if you don't know ANY of the numbers then how do you expect to model it? How can you tell people "We know for a FACT that light curves!" if you can't even say how it curves in ANY example or measurement?

You not only have no idea if this equation is true, you have no idea how to even figure out what β should be. That's a far cry from a theory you claim proves a flat earth.

You say you can make accurate predictions with an equation where you don't know any of the numbers? I'd like to see the results of that.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15540
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #18 on: May 17, 2020, 11:45:39 PM »
It would seem that you ran out of valuable things to say. If you don't like using proportional relations in science, so be it. There's nothing I can do to help your wilful ignorance.

As for having any idea if this equation is "true" - you really should read the snippet I've quoted for you. You're woefully confused about the level of precision and intended purpose here.

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

#### JSS

• 1618
• Math is math!
##### Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2020, 12:17:10 AM »
It would seem that you ran out of valuable things to say. If you don't like using proportional relations in science, so be it. There's nothing I can do to help your wilful ignorance.

As for having any idea if this equation is "true" - you really should read the snippet I've quoted for you. You're woefully confused about the level of precision and intended purpose here.

You keep using "proportional relations" like it means something special. It's just a long winded way of saying equation.

There is no ignorance of EA on my part, because you haven't provided anything, either here or the Wiki.

You have a few vague statements about light curving in ways you can't describe and an equation, sorry, a "proportional relation" that doesn't actually show a relation because you can't even fill in all the numbers. Or any of them.

I can't even criticize that equation because you just claim it's not really meant for precision tasks like, using it or talking about it.

I could say all squares are circles, and bendy light just makes them look like squares because y=x*z^5/p+17mpg/6Hz. And that has as much evidence as you've managed to show.