The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Eratosthenes on January 17, 2014, 05:02:39 PM
-
During my time studying at the Library of Alexandra, I had many opportunities to correspond with other great thinkers. During that time I noticed something about shadows. One of my colleagues from the city of Syene in southern Egypt, noted that on the Summer
Solstice the sun was directly overhead, and that vertical objects cast no shadow. Now with that established, get a consensus on the distance from the earth to the sun. Its about 149,600,000 km by my calculations.
Any debate on the stated facts to this point?
-
During my time studying at the Library of Alexandra, I had many opportunities to correspond with other great thinkers. During that time I noticed something about shadows. One of my colleagues from the city of Syene in southern Egypt, noted that on the Summer
Solstice the sun was directly overhead, and that vertical objects cast no shadow. Now with that established, get a consensus on the distance from the earth to the sun. Its about 149,600,000 km by my calculations.
Any debate on the stated facts to this point?
With a little bit of reading on our wiki, you would have discovered the Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA for short, sometimes referred to as "bendy light" by detractors, and some believers have adopted the term as well, for humor's sake). This is a force that, along with the Universal Acceleration that gives rise to the force of gravity as we feel it, bends light upward as the source of light moves farther away from the observer.
(http://i.imgur.com/jLDfFyW.gif)
In the case of the sun's light, this effect accounts for Eratosthenes' observations.
It also, incidentally accounts for the sinking ship effect, as light rays that begin parallel to Earth first seem to "fall" as the earth moves upward, and then bend upward much like the sun's rays in the effects of EA.
For example:
(http://i.imgur.com/HRTK3zF.png)
The wiki at this site is still being fleshed out by our Zetetic Council but I'm fairly certain the EA is discussed there.
-
Please note that the effect that Tintagel describes is completely Ad Hoc and has not been independently verified. It is a hypothesis that fits the facts, but has no scientific foundation.
-
It is a hypothesis that fits the facts
The science of electromagnetic acceleration is a project I'm spending quite a bit of time on currently, in fact, and others have done no small amount of work on the subject as well, since the maths involved are fairly well understood. Scientific verification of Flat Earth Theory is one of my paramount goals, and just because I'm not posting new findings every day doesn't mean the work isn't being done.
-
It is a hypothesis that fits the facts
The science of electromagnetic acceleration is a project I'm spending quite a bit of time on currently, in fact, and others have done no small amount of work on the subject as well, since the maths involved are fairly well understood. Scientific verification of Flat Earth Theory is one of my paramount goals, and just because I'm not posting new findings every day doesn't mean the work isn't being done.
The maths you just requested the derivation of and no one really knows where they are or why they are the way they are? In what way are they "fairly well understood" other than that they are based on basic algebra and geometry?
-
It is a hypothesis that fits the facts
The science of electromagnetic acceleration is a project I'm spending quite a bit of time on currently, in fact, and others have done no small amount of work on the subject as well, since the maths involved are fairly well understood. Scientific verification of Flat Earth Theory is one of my paramount goals, and just because I'm not posting new findings every day doesn't mean the work isn't being done.
The maths you just requested the derivation of and no one really knows where they are or why they are the way they are? In what way are they "fairly well understood" other than that they are based on basic algebra and geometry?
Well, toss in some trigonometry and perhaps some calculus for when you need to determine precisely the rate at which the curvature of light changes, but yes. That's what I meant. Those maths are well understood. I only mentioned those calculations so that I'd know what kind of work had been done before. It's supplemental to my research, not intrinsic.
-
Tintagel, do you have any proof that light bends the way you say it does?
-
Tintagel, do you have any proof that light bends the way you say it does?
Go outside and look around. Direct observation is the best evidence.
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
I'm also well aware that it's possible to infer a spherical earth from this observation, but as other experiments (including Hoppy's pictorial illustrating a house visible at over four miles across a flat, level expanse of water) have shown sufficiently that the earth's surface is flat, the EA interpretation is, in my opinion, the more valid one.
-
lol, Hoppy's picture has the front door at water level. This is so funny.
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
I'm also well aware that it's possible to infer a spherical earth from this observation, but as other experiments (including Hoppy's pictorial illustrating a house visible at over four miles across a flat, level expanse of water) have shown sufficiently that the earth's surface is flat, the EA interpretation is, in my opinion, the more valid one.
But not conclusive. Especially since your worldview requires denial of satellites which can be easily seen with a simple telescope, including significant features of larger satellites like the ISS.
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
I'm also well aware that it's possible to infer a spherical earth from this observation, but as other experiments (including Hoppy's pictorial illustrating a house visible at over four miles across a flat, level expanse of water) have shown sufficiently that the earth's surface is flat, the EA interpretation is, in my opinion, the more valid one.
But not conclusive. Especially since your worldview requires denial of satellites which can be easily seen with a simple telescope, including significant features of larger satellites like the ISS.
Actually, I believe that satellites exist, just not at the given altitudes.
-
On what grounds? Where is the evidence for low-altitude satellites? Or rather that all satellites are low altitude? And how low is low out of curiosity?
-
Satellites are built by engineers who understand a little bit about science. You people just make stuff up and call it a theory. You are just a joke.
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
What about the light rays coming from the horizon itself? If the earth is flat, then those light rays rays must travel very nearly parallel to the surface of the earth all the way from the horizon to your eye. What keeps those light horizontal light rays from being bent upwards?
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
What about the light rays coming from the horizon itself? If the earth is flat, then those light rays rays must travel very nearly parallel to the surface of the earth all the way from the horizon to your eye. What keeps those light horizontal light rays from being bent upwards?
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon. Take a look at the first graphic again, particularly the 6am and 6pm points. The light reaches your eye at a nearly horizontal angle, so the eye extrapolates back and places the sun closer to the horizon than it actually is.
-
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.
No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
-
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.
No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
No, actually, light from the horizon drops first, and then bends upward. See the second graphic with the trees. This accounts for the "sinking ship" effect, and has a pesky tendency to make the earth look round.
-
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.
No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
No, actually, light from the horizon drops first, and then bends upward. See the second graphic with the trees. This accounts for the "sinking ship" effect, and has a pesky tendency to make the earth look round.
??? Why would the light from the horizon drop at all? Isn't the EA only supposed to cause an upward bending?
-
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.
No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
No, actually, light from the horizon drops first, and then bends upward. See the second graphic with the trees. This accounts for the "sinking ship" effect, and has a pesky tendency to make the earth look round.
??? Why would the light from the horizon drop at all? Isn't the EA only supposed to cause an upward bending?
It does, but the acceleration of light (or, more accurately the jerk, or the rate at which its acceleration changes) happens at a different rate than the earth, so at first the earth "catches up" with the light that is traveling horizontally, like light from a tree, and then it accelerates faster and curves upward. These are the calculations I'm working on, in fact, trying to determine not only the acceleration, but the jerk and impulse of EM radiation due to UA / DE.
-
Tintagel, are you familiar with the Michelson-Morley experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment)? If not, I suggest that you look in to it. I think that you might find it relevant to your calculations.
-
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
I'm also well aware that it's possible to infer a spherical earth from this observation, but as other experiments (including Hoppy's pictorial illustrating a house visible at over four miles across a flat, level expanse of water) have shown sufficiently that the earth's surface is flat, the EA interpretation is, in my opinion, the more valid one.
For the record hoppy's picture is based on incorrect assumptions such as the 12.9 ft drop that he posted with it. The drop is 4.75 because of the height of the camera.
-
The sun isn't ever anywhere near the horizon.
No, but the horizon is. Sunlight travels from the sun, illuminates the horizon and travels to your eye. So, are you suggesting that sunlight bends as it travels from the sun to the horizon, but travels straight from the horizon to your eye?
No, actually, light from the horizon drops first, and then bends upward. See the second graphic with the trees. This accounts for the "sinking ship" effect, and has a pesky tendency to make the earth look round.
??? Why would the light from the horizon drop at all? Isn't the EA only supposed to cause an upward bending?
It does, but the acceleration of light (or, more accurately the jerk, or the rate at which its acceleration changes) happens at a different rate than the earth, so at first the earth "catches up" with the light that is traveling horizontally, like light from a tree, and then it accelerates faster and curves upward. These are the calculations I'm working on, in fact, trying to determine not only the acceleration, but the jerk and impulse of EM radiation due to UA / DE.
I know this does not count as a perfectly credible source but the folks over at reddit have something to say about photon acceleration: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1der30/when_a_photon_is_emitted_from_an_stationary_atom/
-
One person's horizon is another's location, and so on round the world.