The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: SteelyBob on December 13, 2021, 02:33:23 PM
-
During a recent thread in FE Investigations (see https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg252400#msg252400 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg252400#msg252400)) we ended up in a conversation about the shape of the 'lit area' (ie the portion of the earth that is in sunlight at any one time).
Since we moved into more 'Theory' territory, and since the thread dried up a bit, I thought I'd pose the question here so we can continue the discussion if that's ok with the mods?
The issue at hand is that the wiki explanation of EA would suggest that the area of earth being illuminated would form a circle, the edge of which would be the locus of all points at which EA had curved the light from the sun to 0 degrees elevation, ie parallel with the earth's surface - beyond that point there would be darkness. Moving towards the sun from the edge of the circle the light would arrive at the observer at an elevation angle related to their distance from the point under the sun - 1 degree of elevation change for every 60 nautical miles. This all follows from TB's explanation that the sun and the stars etc are all at the same height, around 6500 miles, above the FE.
The problem with that explanation is that the observed lit area of the earth does not conform to anything like a circle - see earlier in the above thread. To explain this, TB invoked some kind of lens type distortion caused by the dome above the FE.
But the problem with that is that, in fixing one problem, it just creates another. The reason the EA explanation worked the way it does is to explain the observed changes in elevation of the stars, amongst other things - we know, for example, that the north star's elevation angle is equal to the observer's latitude in degrees north. If the dome is then distorting the sunlight to enable it to reach far-flung parts of the FE (whilst the sun itself remains remarkably round!) , then the same must be true for the stars, residing as they do at the same height as the sun according to the wiki / TB. And yet we know that the stars we can see at night are very much driven by our latitude - you can't see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere, for example. So my question to the FE community is how do you resolve this paradox?
-
How many phenomenon now are hand-waved away with the explanation of 'light gets curved'?
1. Sailboats descend below the horizon to an observer at sea level because light curves the image of the boat downwards, producing the illusion of a curved plane.
2. Light from the sun is curved into a bean shape as it casts down over the Earths surface, producing the illusion of a sphere illuminated by a distant light source.
3. Light from the stars in the dome are excluded from this principle, producing the illusion of distant stars, galaxies and gas clouds.
I suggest Flat Earth theory try to get this straight. Light refraction is a solvable physics problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfawFJCRDSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q82euus-9o
If you don't have the physics skill, knowledge and understanding to perform the calculations for light refracting through a simple prism yet you feel confident enough to claim that Flat Earth phenomenon is explained by light refraction, you need to take a big step back and spend some time in deep introspection because that is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-
I understand the FE theory of the sun revolving in a circular plane above the flat surface
of the planet at a constant altitude of 3,000 miles (more or less), with its orbital centre
located above the North pole. Hence the "spotlight" effect on the Earth's surface.
But that seems to ignore the fact that rather than being smaller in diameter than the Earth,
(as per the FE model) in fact the sun is massively larger; its diameter is 109 times that of
the Earth, measured even with any simple optical telescope.
This leads me to believe that the spotlight effect could not occur as theorised. Imagine a
table-tennis ball resting on the far side of your room, illuminated by the incandescent bulb
of a table lamp on the opposite side of the room. This better illustrates the lighting effects
from the sun onto Earth.
The shadow thus formed on the table-tennis ball will not actually form a clearly defined spotlight
on the surface of the ball, but simply its nearside illuminated fully, and it far-side in darkness.
Exactly as per RE theory.
A flat sheet of A4 paper cut to a circular shape and held facing the light will also be fully illuminated
over its entire surface, with again no spotlight effect, and at odds with the FE theory. How can
this be explained?
And, critically, it makes little difference if the ball and paper are 10 meters distant from the light
source or one metre from the light source. Which means, in effect, and knowing the size of the
sun, it could be 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface (ouch!) or 93,000,000 miles above, and the
RE model would still hold.
-
How many phenomenon now are hand-waved away with the explanation of 'light gets curved'?
1. Sailboats descend below the horizon to an observer at sea level because light curves the image of the boat downwards, producing the illusion of a curved plane.
2. Light from the sun is curved into a bean shape as it casts down over the Earths surface, producing the illusion of a sphere illuminated by a distant light source.
3. Light from the stars in the dome are excluded from this principle, producing the illusion of distant stars, galaxies and gas clouds.
My point is that (2) isn't compatible with EA anyway. The explanation for EA describes beams of light radiating out from the sun / stars and being bent vertically - this would result in a circular pattern. There's no explanation offered for the bean shape - that comes from another, incompatible explanation involving lenses. They are both individually flawed and mutually exclusive.
I understand the FE theory of the sun revolving in a circular plane above the flat surface
of the planet at a constant altitude of 3,000 miles (more or less), with its orbital centre
located above the North pole. Hence the "spotlight" effect on the Earth's surface.
But that seems to ignore the fact that rather than being smaller in diameter than the Earth,
(as per the FE model) in fact the sun is massively larger; its diameter is 109 times that of
the Earth, measured even with any simple optical telescope.
This leads me to believe that the spotlight effect could not occur as theorised. Imagine a
table-tennis ball resting on the far side of your room, illuminated by the incandescent bulb
of a table lamp on the opposite side of the room. This better illustrates the lighting effects
from the sun onto Earth.
The shadow thus formed on the table-tennis ball will not actually form a clearly defined spotlight
on the surface of the ball, but simply its nearside illuminated fully, and it far-side in darkness.
Exactly as per RE theory.
A flat sheet of A4 paper cut to a circular shape and held facing the light will also be fully illuminated
over its entire surface, with again no spotlight effect, and at odds with the FE theory. How can
this be explained?
And, critically, it makes little difference if the ball and paper are 10 meters distant from the light
source or one metre from the light source. Which means, in effect, and knowing the size of the
sun, it could be 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface (ouch!) or 93,000,000 miles above, and the
RE model would still hold.
I suspect the FE answer to that will be that the sun isn't that big - it's much smaller in the FE model. I should also point out that TB has stated that the wiki is wrong and that the sun and starts are all up at around 6500 miles, not 3000.
-
How many phenomenon now are hand-waved away with the explanation of 'light gets curved'?
1. Sailboats descend below the horizon to an observer at sea level because light curves the image of the boat downwards, producing the illusion of a curved plane.
2. Light from the sun is curved into a bean shape as it casts down over the Earths surface, producing the illusion of a sphere illuminated by a distant light source.
3. Light from the stars in the dome are excluded from this principle, producing the illusion of distant stars, galaxies and gas clouds.
My point is that (2) isn't compatible with EA anyway. The explanation for EA describes beams of light radiating out from the sun / stars and being bent vertically - this would result in a circular pattern. There's no explanation offered for the bean shape - that comes from another, incompatible explanation involving lenses. They are both individually flawed and mutually exclusive.
I understand the FE theory of the sun revolving in a circular plane above the flat surface
of the planet at a constant altitude of 3,000 miles (more or less), with its orbital centre
located above the North pole. Hence the "spotlight" effect on the Earth's surface.
But that seems to ignore the fact that rather than being smaller in diameter than the Earth,
(as per the FE model) in fact the sun is massively larger; its diameter is 109 times that of
the Earth, measured even with any simple optical telescope.
This leads me to believe that the spotlight effect could not occur as theorised. Imagine a
table-tennis ball resting on the far side of your room, illuminated by the incandescent bulb
of a table lamp on the opposite side of the room. This better illustrates the lighting effects
from the sun onto Earth.
The shadow thus formed on the table-tennis ball will not actually form a clearly defined spotlight
on the surface of the ball, but simply its nearside illuminated fully, and it far-side in darkness.
Exactly as per RE theory.
A flat sheet of A4 paper cut to a circular shape and held facing the light will also be fully illuminated
over its entire surface, with again no spotlight effect, and at odds with the FE theory. How can
this be explained?
And, critically, it makes little difference if the ball and paper are 10 meters distant from the light
source or one metre from the light source. Which means, in effect, and knowing the size of the
sun, it could be 3,000 miles above the Earth's surface (ouch!) or 93,000,000 miles above, and the
RE model would still hold.
I suspect the FE answer to that will be that the sun isn't that big - it's much smaller in the FE model. I should also point out that TB has stated that the wiki is wrong and that the sun and starts are all up at around 6500 miles, not 3000.
If the Sun is the source of all heat on Earth and it's only 3000-6500 miles away it's a wonder we are not vaporized instantly.
-
At equinox, the sun lights half the earth, from longitude to ((longitude +180) mod 360). On the FE map, this turns into simply bisecting the earth, one side is dark, the other is daylight. I have made a graphic of the horizontal component of bending light that I should probably put in it's own thread. Numerous questions arise.
Is the EA wiki page still in effect? I could not find it in the index, just through search.
I once calculated the size of an FE sun 3,500 mi away as 35 miles across. One can measure the energy per square foot, as is well known through solar panels. I calculate the ratio of the ratio of area of the sun to the lit portion of the earth (FE) to be 100,000 to 1. That means that each square foot of the sun has 100,000 times as much energy passing through/generated as the surface of the earth receives. The edge of the dome around the sun must be some pertty remarkable material, ditto whatever holds it up, shade mechanism.
Even more interesting is the total failure of RET explanation for the sun that produces all that power to grow plants, make wind and rain and ocean currents, power solar cells, heat the ground, etc. RET says it is a giant blob of hydrogen that compresses itself into fusion. Not sure it works with 35 mile diameter blob of hydrogen. Pretty sure it doesn't.
-
At equinox, the sun lights half the earth, from longitude to ((longitude +180) mod 360). On the FE map, this turns into simply bisecting the earth, one side is dark, the other is daylight. I have made a graphic of the horizontal component of bending light that I should probably put in it's own thread. Numerous questions arise.
Is the EA wiki page still in effect? I could not find it in the index, just through search.
I once calculated the size of an FE sun 3,500 mi away as 35 miles across. One can measure the energy per square foot, as is well known through solar panels. I calculate the ratio of the ratio of area of the sun to the lit portion of the earth (FE) to be 100,000 to 1. That means that each square foot of the sun has 100,000 times as much energy passing through/generated as the surface of the earth receives. The edge of the dome around the sun must be some pertty remarkable material, ditto whatever holds it up, shade mechanism.
Even more interesting is the total failure of RET explanation for the sun that produces all that power to grow plants, make wind and rain and ocean currents, power solar cells, heat the ground, etc. RET says it is a giant blob of hydrogen that compresses itself into fusion. Not sure it works with 35 mile diameter blob of hydrogen. Pretty sure it doesn't.
More significant is the failure of FET to explain why sunlight can travel up to 2.5x further in one arbitrary direction, over another.
(https://i.imgur.com/X6fyVNC.png)
-
Equally significant is the failure of FE to explain the mechanism which changes the shape of the lit area throughout the year.
-
All of these are great points - a bit disappointing that nobody seems willing to take it on from an FE perspective.
-
Another discrepancy with reality is the horizontal angle of the sun. If you diagram where the sun appears to be from San Diego and Perth, you will get very different vectors that do not point to the sun nor to any intersection point inside the edge of FE. The angle of error is zero only directly north and south. From Perth, for instance, the sun looks like it is south of New Zealand on this map. And the "bending" is in opposite directions, increasing as you go south until you get to the corner of the daylight area, then decreases until it is zero directly south.
EA might explain the vertical component (not!), but the horizontal component remains a mystery, to quote the EA page "unknown forces with unknown equations".
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU&feature=emb_title
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
So the "dome" is actually a chunk of glass magnifier that would crush us all if placed on top of us? What would be a better demonstration is a glass bowl upturned and placed over the monopole map. That would actually be a "dome". This guy's demonstration is worthless, it has no relevance to a "dome" because it isn't a dome.
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
So the "dome" is actually a chunk of glass magnifier that would crush us all if placed on top of us? What would be a better demonstration is a glass bowl upturned and placed over the monopole map. That would actually be a "dome". This guy's demonstration is worthless, it has no relevance to a "dome" because it isn't a dome.
I don't believe he indicated that there is literally a physically dome, and is giving it an example for how light could be affected by affecting phenomena above the earth.
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU&feature=emb_title
I might have to give this one a try. I'm guessing what I'll find is that if you view the dome from the side where the light is shining you'll see the entire map lit while the view from above is darkened because of the light refracting. Basically, a slight of hand parlor trick.
-
The video with the flashlight over the glass hemisphere does show that you can light up the part of the map underneath similar to the shape of the lit area on FE. Declare victory and go home, or ....
But what would someone on the ground see in this demo? Looks to me like they would see half the dome lit up. But they see stars exactly where the dome is lit up, at the same time. Let's see a video demonstrating how that works. Show us a video with someone in the dark area seeing the stars in the same area of the dome that is lit up. .
If your answer is: "A physical system that does this is possible.", then you haven't made much of a claim, only that it is possible, which can never be disproven and can be said about anything. You don't even need the video. Just say: "This could be, and you can't prove it's not."
What would be impressive is if you had observations, equations, dimensions, materials, experiments, let's see the physics defined and demonstrated. A flashlight, glass disk, and map do not suffice for anything. Show me how 2 people a thousand miles apart see such a different dome, one lit up light blue, the other dark and full of stars.
-
The video with the flashlight over the glass hemisphere does show that you can light up the part of the map underneath similar to the shape of the lit area on FE.
But does it. The only thing the video shows is that you can make the surface of the dome black. It demonstrates nothing as to what is happening under the dome. It's not dissimilar from light traveling down a fiber optic cable. Very little light escapes the side of the cable but a bright dot is seen at the end. I'd postulate the same thing is occurring on the surface of the dome which is why the surface turns black.
-
Maybe if our atmosphere were made of solid glass, then the demonstration would yield some useful insight. Otherwise I fail to see the relevance.
-
Maybe if our atmosphere were made of solid glass, then the demonstration would yield some useful insight. Otherwise I fail to see the relevance.
I'm fairly sure that there are more atoms in the atmosphere than there are in that piece of glass.
-
Maybe if our atmosphere were made of solid glass, then the demonstration would yield some useful insight. Otherwise I fail to see the relevance.
I'm fairly sure that there are more atoms in the atmosphere than there are in that piece of glass.
Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3. So the desktop glass dome example is rendered totally moot by the point that it is exaggerating the refractive effect by the point that glass is over 2000 times denser than air.
Another point of contention about your glass half-sphere example is that the density of the glass at the bottom (touching the plane) and the top are all the same densities. Which is obviously and demonstrably not true when it comes to the atmosphere, climbing to the top of a mountain is evidence enough that the atmosphere is not homogenous. There is a air pressure gradient as you go up in altitude. You would need a glass dome that is 'fuzzy' where it is 25x denser at the base than it is at its mid point, tapering off into nothing as you approach the top boundary.
-
The glass in the video does not illustrate what people on the surface of the earth experience. The video clearly shows part of the dome lit up, and the rest dark. In reality, some see the entire dome dark with stars, while others, sometimes a few hundred miles away, sees light blue over the entire dome.
Let's see a demo from the surface of the earth that shows how some can see the entire dome as light blue while others see it dark at the same time.
Explain how someone can look up in the sky at night, where the sun is shining bright for some, and see dark sky with stars at exactly the same place. Explain how someone can look at the sky just after sunset to the west and see dark sky and stars, while someone a few hundred miles west can look at the exact same spot on the dome between them and see light blue.
RET explains this consistent with known physics. FET has no explanation.
-
Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3.
What makes you think the density of the medium should remain the same regardless of scale?
-
The density and material of observers on the surface and up to the dome is virtually the same when two people a few hundred miles apart look up at the same spot on the dome between them at sunset. Certainly no difference that can account for the fact that one sees light blue sky while the other sees dark sky and stars. If they both look west, one sees light blue, while the other sees dark sky and stars, right through the lighted area, the same place on the dome that the other sees light blue, looking at almost the same angle and almost the same distance.
Also does not explain how the FE location of the sun on the dome at night is seen as stars, even as it produces enough light to illuminate half the earth. Yet the relatively dim stars and dark sky go right through.
I really want to understand this, but can't seem to get an explanation. "We can't explain it, but the earth is flat, so there must be some unknown force with unknown equations", can some FE add details to this? Diagram? Experiments? Equations? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
-
The density and material of observers on the surface and up to the dome is virtually the same when two people a few hundred miles apart look up at the same spot on the dome between them at sunset.
That is not the question I've asked. Would you like to try again?
-
Are we talking glass dome the size of atmosphere with varying density? Then why care about the answer, the atmosphere is air. Air pressure variations are well known to weathermen, aeronautical engineers, etc. and the effect on optics is well known. Would love to hear how air pressure variations cause the whole dome to look dark for one person while light blue to another.
I'll make you a deal, I will answer any questions about density variation or whatever if you answer my questions:
How do persons on either side of sunset look at the dome between them and one sees dark with stars while the other sees light blue?
How can someone can look at the dome through the daylight part and see dark and stars on the side of the dome?
The glass globe video does not explain, it illustrates my problem. Someone looking up from the bottom of that glass globe is going to see part of it light and part dark. It does not match my experience of day and night sky.
-
Are we talking glass dome the size of atmosphere with varying density?
No.
I'll make you a deal
You are in no position to make any "deals". The forum has rules, and those won't change on your whim.
-
The density of the air over the planet varies with altitude according to RE physics.
Climbers that reach high mountain altitudes need auxiliary oxygen to sustain exertion.
Prop-driven planes can't fly at extreme altitudes.
But... the density of the glass half-sphere over the RE map is constant, and simply acts
as any prism does. Additionally, the light source used is far too small, too focussed, and
is far too close to the surface of the earth in order to represent the sun.
This experiment needs to be better performed with, say, an open 100W incandescent light
bulb at a distance of, say, a couple of metres directly above the glass prism. The resultant
light pattern on the map will be vastly different.
To use a penlight torch is simply unrepresentative of the relative sizes of the earth and the
sun and the distance between them.
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU&feature=emb_title
All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?
So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.
-
The density of the air over the planet varies with altitude according to RE physics.
Climbers that reach high mountain altitudes need auxiliary oxygen to sustain exertion.
Prop-driven planes can't fly at extreme altitudes.
I'm very
happy for you,
but that has
absolutely nothing
to do with scomato's
objection, or why
it's nonsense.
-
Why even discuss? That a 2 inch half sphere of glass over a flat earth map with a flashlight shining on it can produce a light pattern on said FE map proves nothing. The atmosphere of the earth is air, and this is glass. Very different optical and physical properties.
-
Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3.
What makes you think the density of the medium should remain the same regardless of scale?
Refraction is based on density. If the density of the atmosphere is less, the refraction angle will be less. So, for the demo to match reality, the density of the medium has to match.
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU&feature=emb_title
All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?
So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.
This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU&feature=emb_title
All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?
So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.
This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.
You are dodging the question of how a glass dome proves any point about our atmosphere and our sun. Glass is approx 2500x denser than air, the change in density from one material to another is literally what causes light refraction in the first place. I could not build a desktop model of a building out of paper and popsicle sticks and claim that those materials are suitable for real world construction, that would be insane. Using solid glass as an analogue to our atmosphere is just absurd, try the experiment again with a dome full of air and see where that gets you, at least that would be started on the right track.
Not to mention the use of a flashlight as a light source, which is not analogous to our Sun. According to the wiki, "The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth." If you shone a lightbulb at the glass dome instead of a spotlight you'd get a completely different result.
So the example using a glass dome and a flash light to describe the world is doubly absurd.
-
This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.
Looking at this from the wiki:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/bf/Electromagnetic_Accelerator.gif)
Couldn't you do a real world experiment (instead of using a desktop hemisphere magnifying glass) and test the upward bending of light in EA? Just spit balling: Like putting a barrier, like a shield of some sort, perpendicular to the sun. Raise it up so there is a gap between the ground and the shield. Kinda like raising up a garage door halfway. If the sun rays are curving up as dictated by EA, then the light should extend further under and past the gap than if the rays were in a straight line. In other words, the EA light rays should curve under the halfway-up garage door and extend deeper into the garage than a straight light ray would.
You could probably do the same thing with shadows - Perhaps a tall building casting a shadow a ways away. If the shadow is longer than a straight line from the sun, I guess the EA light rays are bending upward.
Has anyone done any real world EA experiments? Not the ones in the wiki that require lasers or synthetic magnetic devices and a Stanford lab. I mean real world experiments, with the Sun.
-
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU&feature=emb_title
So, what you're saying is that this is not a demonstration, it's merely an analogy. It doesn't prove anything, it just illustrates an effect similar to what EA would provide. Correct?
All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?
So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.
This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.