[Bobby Shafto]

I've been wondering for awhile how EAT on a flat earth would be distinguishable from orthodox globe earth light.

While reading up on super-refraction, it occurred to me that EAT would be manifest by the sun becoming elongated as its elevation decreased since light from the sun's upper limb would be bent less than the lower limb.

We often see the opposite of this at sunrise and sunset when the sun can appear squashed due to refraction bending light toward the earth.

If EAT were real, the sun would not remain a circle/orb throughout the day. It would exhibit stretching in the vertical as it dropped toward the horizon.

No?

[Bobby Shafto]

I took these on April 22nd, 2018, using an E15 solar filter. The annotated white circles are all the same with 199px diameter. This sequence shows how the sun gets "squashed" by atmospheric refraction, which bends the light downward toward denser atmosphere. This makes the sun appear slightly higher than it actually is. But the effect is greater on the lower portion of the sun as it encounters a higher refraction index than the upper portion, causing the lower limb have a greater deviation from its actually elevation than the upper limb, and thus the "squashed" appearance:



But with EAT, the "bendy" path of light is upward, which would have the opposite effect, causing the sun to appear lower in the sky than it actually is and similarly should stretch the sun as the effect becomes more pronounced (toward sunset).



On a flat earth with a sun of altitude and distance proposed by most flat earth models, the sun should never descend below around 17-20° in elevation. Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory is proposed to explain how the sun can appear lower than it actually is geometrically. However, passage through those lower 17-20° of elevation to the apparent setting should predict a gradual elongation from a circular orb, which we do not observe.

I present this as evidence that EA does not exist.

[Pete Svarrior]

Your assumptions seem flawed. Considering where the "top" and "bottom" of the observable Sun would be (their elevation would be equal), you can only expect a marginal "squashing", much like what you've illustrated.

[Bobby Shafto]

I drew up an illustration to help explain.

The left side depicts how sun light at a low angle through an atmosphere (convex) will bend light to follow the curve of the earth. It does so in a sleight amount, resulting in a sun that appears slightly higher than its geometric position, by a distance about the same angular width of the sun or about half a degree. Without an atmosphere, the sun would set about a minute earlier.

Th right side depicts how sun light would bend due to upward electromagnetic acceleration. The theory describes light path that bends in the opposite direction of globe earth's refraction, causing the sun to appear lower than it's actual position. This would amount to 17-20 or more degrees, depending on the dimensions of the earth, sun and the distance of sun over the earth.



On a globe earth, the downward-refracted light would cause vertical distortion that would "squash" the appearance of the sun since the lower portion of the sun is being more heavily refracted than the upper portion of the sun.

On a flat earth with EA, the upward-bending light would cause a vertical distortion that would elongate the appearance of the sun since the portion of the sun further away is more heavily affected by EA than the portion closer to the observer. (With EA, the observer is actually seeing the side of the sun that is facing earth, with its light bent toward the horizontal such that the sun is turned nearly 90° when seen low on the horizon).

Does the sun at sunset appear squashed or elongated?

[Pete Svarrior]

If the two examples were considered in their appropriate scales, I strongly doubt you'd be able to illustrate your hypothetical. Any such stretching will be marginal, and practically undetectable in a refraction-less scenario. In real life, your proposal is inconclusive.

[Bobby Shafto]

Light from the sun bending upwards would also increase the speed with which the sun sets as it approaches horizon.

By contrast atmospheric refraction, bending light downwards, slows the passage of the sun at sunset.

This would be another observation of sunset phenomena that favors downward light-bending of atmospheric refraction vice upward light-bending of EAT.

[Bad Puppy]

Light from the sun bending upwards would also increase the speed with which the sun sets as it approaches horizon.

By contrast atmospheric refraction, bending light downwards, slows the passage of the sun at sunset.

This would be another observation of sunset phenomena that favors downward light-bending of atmospheric refraction vice upward light-bending of EAT.

EAT is fake because dark energy cannot be directly observed, and therefore does not exist.

Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You are the one making all of these fantastic claims. You are the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things. You are the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really cannot do all of that stuff.

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/nov/HQ_06353_Hubble_Dark_Energy.html

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy.

So, if NASA doesn't have anything out in space, what is this dark energy?  How did we come to know of its theoretical existence, its properties, its effects?

You can't cherry pick space facts to try to fit your model.  If I can trust this information from NASA, then we can confirm that there is no space travel conspiracy.  If there is a space travel conspiracy, then all data regarding dark energy should be viewed as false and cannot be used in any equation thus invalidating EAT as presented.

[Bobby Shafto]

Tom Bishop posted this video on another topic. It's another example of explaining how a "horizon" on a flat plane can serve as an obstacle by light bending upward. The video makes a case for atmoplanar refraction being the mechanism for light bending upward rather than EAT; however, it doesn't explain how this refractive condition could be standard vice anomalous.

I post it here because if you replace refraction with EAT this could be a valid alternative to straight light (with refraction) over a spherical earth.

[Bobby Shafto]

Edit: Just realized I have a flaw in my illustration. I'll leave it up while I fix it, but wonder if anyone will notice the error.



Fixed; leaving link to original flawed image

If analyzing with only single-ray light path, these two scenarios would be basically equivalent, I believe.

The mechanism for light bending to follow earth curve in a non-homogeneous atmosphere (density decreasing with elevation) is refraction.

A proposed mechanism for light bending upward in a non-homogeneous atmoplane is Electromagnetic Acceleration, which could theoretically produce  this effect and give the illusion of a surface that curves away from the viewer.

I dispute that refraction can serve as a mechanism for this upward light bending in an atmoplane (except in certain, non-standard density gradient conditions), but I leave that for another topic.  The point I hoped to raise with this topic how one could potentially distinguish between:

(1) a flat world with a standard upward-bending light of EAT (with slight deviations due to atmoplanar refraction; and
(2) a convex world where light follows a basically straight path (with slight deviations due to atmospheric refraction)