The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on December 22, 2024, 07:59:03 PM
-
The official TFES model of the cosmos says that light is bending upwards (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration). The article argues that there is no reason to assume that light travels in straight lines, and that curved lines are more natural in nature.
The Double Slit Experiment has shown that light exhibits wave-like properties and discredits the old idea that light exists purely as discrete particles. Not only has it discredited the old particle theory of light, but it also appears to discredit the axiom that light travels in straight lines. In these experiments it is seen that wave interference produces curved paths.
Wikipedia
From the Double Slit Experiment Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Plasmonic_Young%27s_double_slits_interference.png)
Plasmonic Young's double slits interference - Near-field intensity distribution patterns for plasmonic slits with equal widths (A) and non-equal widths (B).
Science Illustrated
A Science Illustrated article portrays curved routes (https://www.pressreader.com/australia/science-illustrated/20200102/282415581177235):
(https://i.imgur.com/EG1F8mq.jpeg)
De Broglie–Bohm theory
The De Broglie–Bohm theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) in Bohemian dynamics postulates that the destination of individual photons in the Double Split Experiment is not purely probabistic as some speculate, and an actual configuration of particles exists. When the trajectories are mapped out, it is seen that the light makes these jagged curved paths:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trajectories-of-the-Bohmian-dynamics-in-the-two-slit-experiment-Each-line-corresponds-to_fig1_324435934
(https://i.imgur.com/cI9t3e4.jpeg)
-
it also appears to discredit the axiom that light travels in straight lines.
But that isn't an axiom. Or rather the exceptions to it - light's path being affected by things like diffraction, refraction or spacetime curvature are well known and understood. The concept of light bending "upwards" is a bit meaningless in mainstream science. What does "upwards" even mean? That word is only meaningful in relation to your position. "Up" in Australia is a different direction to "up" in the UK - in the globe earth model.
I'm not clear what your actual point is here.
-
light's path being affected by things like diffraction, refraction or spacetime curvature are well known and understood
This is not understood. In this case with the Double Slit Experiment the light isn't being affected by anything at all. If one photon is fired at the slits at a time it will will take one of the curved paths of light and make the wave pattern in sequential dots on the screen destination at the end.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/244037/double-slit-experiment-that-proved-wave-nature/
"Even when researchers fired just one photon at a time, the interference pattern still emerged, as if the photon split in two and travelled through both slits."
Aside from those who say that "it's being affected by phantom light in a parallel dimension that went through the other slit", it is not explained. Individual photons inexplicably make those curved paths all on their own.
I'm not clear what your actual point is here.
The point is clearly that it is wrong that light travels in straight lines. Light travels in curved lines. As mentioned above, a single photon can travel on a curved path on its own without any known influence.
-
If one photon is fired at the slits at a time it will will take one of the curved paths of light and make the wave pattern in sequential dots on the screen destination at the end.
You didn't need to provide a source for that, the double split experiment is a well known demonstration of quantum theory.
The really weird thing about it is if you put a sensor at one of the slits to detect which slit the photon is going through then the interference pattern disappears and they start acting like particles again. This is a weird, but well known phenomenon
The point is clearly that it is wrong that light travels in straight lines. Light travels in curved lines.
It travels in straight lines unless...
And the unlesses are well known. This is like you hearing Newton's first law of motion - that objects remain at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted on by a force - and then rolling a ball, noting it stops after a time and saying "haha, see?!". No, don't see - there was a force acting, friction.
As mentioned above, a single photon can travel on a curved path on its own without any known influence.
While not being an expert in quantum mechanics, I don't think that effect is because of the photon travelling on a curved path.
It's because of the photon acting like a wave and going through both slits at the same time and interfering with itself.
As I said, it stops happening if you observe which slit it goes through.
A weird, but well understood effect in quantum theory.
Refraction is well understood too and Einsten's theory about light being affected by gravity has been verified experimentally during eclipses and gravitational lensing is used in astronomy.
None of this is the gotcha you seem to think it is.
-
Considering that there is more than one photon which the sun and all light sources produce, any point made about it only happening when one photon acts upon another or a photon acting upon itself, is fairly irrelevant. Light travels in curved paths.
-
any point made about it only happening when one photon acts upon another or a photon acting upon itself, is fairly irrelevant.
It doesn’t only happen with one photon. That’s not what I said. It’s the fact it STILL happens with one photon at a time which is the weird thing, and that it stops happening if you observe which slit the photon goes through
Light travels in curved paths.
Incorrect. The interference pattern only happens because of the slits and the wave behaviour of light when going through small apertures.
-
I do not know how you can claim the interference pattern only happens because of the slits without observing it to be the case.
-
any point made about it only happening when one photon acts upon another or a photon acting upon itself, is fairly irrelevant.
It doesn’t only happen with one photon. That’s not what I said. It’s the fact it STILL happens with one photon at a time which is the weird thing, and that it stops happening if you observe which slit the photon goes through
Light travels in curved paths.
Incorrect. The interference pattern only happens because of the slits and the wave behaviour of light when going through small apertures.
I noticed that as a kid with bad eyesight. I discovered that if I looked through a pin-prick hole in a piece of paper, it brought things into focus.
-
If light naturally travels in curved paths, why do we observe straight-line propagation in everyday experiences like shadows and laser beams?
-
Light generally travels in straight lines in a vacuum, as described by classical optics. However, in the presence of strong gravitational fields, general relativity predicts that light follows curved paths due to spacetime curvature—an effect observed during solar eclipses when starlight bends around the Sun. Atmospheric refraction can also cause light to curve, altering apparent positions of objects near the horizon. The context of the discussion matters when considering whether light ‘naturally’ curves.
-
In flat spacetime, in a vacuum light, will always travel in a straight line.
Light doesn't accelerate, it travels at a constant velocity. Constant velocity = straight line motion in flat spacetime. Acceleration=curved line motion in flat spacetime.
Edit:
From the wiki:
The Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory calls for light to be "bent" upwards as it travels towards the earth. The path of light is a parabolic arc. It is commonly abbreviated to EA.
The only way light could be traveling in a "parabolic arc" is if it is traveling through a curved space. And if it is traveling through flat space and deflected by the motion of an object, it is deflected in the opposite direction of the motion.
In other words, if light, which is not accelerated and therefore, by definition, moves in a straight line in flat space time, is deflected by the upward acceleration of the earth, the path of the light wouild angle down, not up and would continue in a straight line, just at a different angle.
-
The official TFES model of the cosmos says that light is bending upwards (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration). The article argues that there is no reason to assume that light travels in straight lines, and that curved lines are more natural in nature.
The Double Slit Experiment has shown that light exhibits wave-like properties and discredits the old idea that light exists purely as discrete particles. Not only has it discredited the old particle theory of light, but it also appears to discredit the axiom that light travels in straight lines. In these experiments it is seen that wave interference produces curved paths.
Wikipedia
To answer this intriguing question, I'll provide a quote from a renowned physicist that directly addresses the nature of light's path.
> "Light travels in straight lines in a homogeneous medium. However, in the presence of gravitational fields or through media with varying optical properties, light can indeed follow curved paths."
— Derived from Albert Einstein's insights on general relativity and optics
This quote captures the nuanced understanding of light's behavior. While light typically moves in straight lines through uniform environments, Einstein's theories of relativity reveal that gravitational fields can bend light's trajectory. This phenomenon is most dramatically observed during solar eclipses, where starlight appears to bend around the sun's massive gravitational field, confirming Einstein's predictions about the curvature of spacetime.
Some real-world examples of light following curved paths include:
- Gravitational lensing in astronomy
- Light bending through optical fibers
- Refraction of light through different media like water or glass
Would you like me to elaborate on any of these fascinating aspects of light's behavior?
From the Double Slit Experiment Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Plasmonic_Young%27s_double_slits_interference.png)
Plasmonic Young's double slits interference - Near-field intensity distribution patterns for plasmonic slits with equal widths (A) and non-equal widths (B).
Science Illustrated
A Science Illustrated article portrays curved routes (https://www.pressreader.com/australia/science-illustrated/20200102/282415581177235):
(https://i.imgur.com/EG1F8mq.jpeg)
De Broglie–Bohm theory
The De Broglie–Bohm theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory) in Bohemian dynamics postulates that the destination of individual photons in the Double Split Experiment is not purely probabistic as some speculate, and an actual configuration of particles exists. When the trajectories are mapped out, it is seen that the light makes these jagged curved paths:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trajectories-of-the-Bohmian-dynamics-in-the-two-slit-experiment-Each-line-corresponds-to_fig1_324435934
(https://i.imgur.com/cI9t3e4.jpeg)
-
The official TFES model of the cosmos says that light is bending upwards (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration). The article argues that there is no reason to assume that light travels in straight lines, and that curved lines are more natural in nature.
How is that light bending upwards accounted for in the Bishop Experiment or the Bedford Level one, out of interest?
-
How is that light bending upwards accounted for in the Bishop Experiment
In the Bishop Experiment, light bending upward would make the results more damning for RE than if it travelled in straight lines. For RE to have a chance, light would have to bend downward (which, of course, is the ad-hoc explanation RE'ers provide)
-
Isn’t light bending down one of the pieces of evidence you use to support UA because that is what would happen in an upward accelerating elevator?
Gravity is often described as an attraction between masses. However, the Equivalence Principle demands that photons, despite being mass-less, will seem to fall to earth[ like other bodies; exactly as if the earth were accelerating upwards.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrdDkmpv/Capture.png) (https://postimages.org/)
If light curves up on a flat earth accelerating up, and down in gravitation field, where is the equivalence? The EP doesn’t just suggest that light could curve down, or allow it to curve down...it demands that it does according to the wiki.
-
How is that light bending upwards accounted for in the Bishop Experiment
In the Bishop Experiment, light bending upward would make the results more damning for RE than if it travelled in straight lines.
OK. I just asked how the bending is accounted for in the experiments.
I mean, cards on the table - I'm pretty certain the Bishop Experiment never happened. I don't believe the results he claims are possible on a flat earth let alone a globe.
At best he made a mistake in terms of what he was looking at and how far away it was.
But I was just asking whether he accounted for any light bending or pre-supposed that light travels in straight lines.
For RE to have a chance, light would have to bend downward (which, of course, is the ad-hoc explanation RE'ers provide)
It's interesting that you call refraction an ad-hoc explanation when it's a well understood phenomenon which you demonstrate with experiments in school. Well, I did.
The refractive index of different materials is known and can be plugged in to equations to predict results.
I'm not clear why you have an issue with that when you seem content with EA - the equation shown on the Wiki has no derivation given and has a constant with an unknown value.
Predicting exactly how much refraction there will be in the atmosphere is trickier of course. Tom has posted timelapse videos showing how refraction changes during the day as atmospheric conditions change. And yet claims that:
"Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year."
-
OK. I just asked how the bending is accounted for in the experiments.
I would expect that it isn't - those are typically the stuff of more classical FE'ers, and you're asking about EA models.
I mean, cards on the table - I'm pretty certain the Bishop Experiment never happened. I don't believe the results he claims are possible on a flat earth let alone a globe.
I mean, it's a fairly easy one to do if you live near a body of water. I've had decent success looking at the coast of Normandy from Alderney. Now, it was more like 18.5 kilometres rather than 23 miles, so it's an expected drop of "only" 27 metres - but that's still 27 metres of height that my sight line somehow overtook. For someone who really likes accusing others of being lazy, you're really unwilling to do anything.
I'm not clear why you have an issue with that when you seem content with EA
I don't have an issue with refraction as a concept, but that doesn't make your flippant use of it any less an ad-hoc explanation. You take a variable phenomenon, declare without evidence that the variables must have just magically aligned for different conditions every time someone has replicated an experiment, and you consider the matter closed. I'm just not happy with such lazy shallow-mindedness.
-
AATW believes that everything that contradicts his model is an optical illusion except for those long distance sinking observations which he claims without evidence are not. ::)
-
I mean, it's a fairly easy one to do if you live near a body of water. I've had decent success looking at the coast of Normandy from Alderney. Now, it was more like 18.5 kilometres rather than 23 miles, so it's an expected drop of "only" 27 metres - but that's still 27 metres of height that my sight line somehow overtook.
27m given a viewer height of 0. With a viewer height of 1m it's 17.5m, 2m it's 14m. And that's without refraction.
Obviously I don't know the details of what you did, what you were looking at, what the atmospheric conditions were.
What I do know is I've seen a load of images said to be "gotchas" and "proof of FE" and they are all people making basic mistakes like:
Failing to take viewer height into account.
Failing to take refraction in to account.
Misidentifying what they're looking at and therefore how far away it is
Not accounting for the fact that the distant object is not at sea level.
Not acknowledging that the bottom part of the object is missing.
For someone who really likes accusing others of being lazy, you're really unwilling to do anything.
Similar answer to the one in the thread about space travel. I'm not the one who feels like I need to test anything.
The shape of the earth has been known for millennia. If there was any lingering doubt about it, which there wasn't really, the pictures and footage from the space race, and the emergent technologies like GPS and Satellite TV put and end to that. I've seen enough timelapses of boats going over the horizon, the claim that some make that if you zoom in you can see them again is clearly untrue. A friend who is in to sailing has told me how distant landmarks emerge from over the horizon top first.
I've never seen any timelapse of a boat going out to sea and just getting smaller and smaller until the optical zoom fails to resolve it.
All that said, on occasional trips to see family near the coast or on holiday I've done a few slightly half hearted tests but never well enough to find anything that conclusive.
I don't have an issue with refraction as a concept, but that doesn't make your flippant use of it any less an ad-hoc explanation. You take a variable phenomenon, declare without evidence that the variables must have just magically aligned for different conditions every time someone has replicated an experiment, and you consider the matter closed. I'm just not happy with such lazy shallow-mindedness.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Tom has posted timelapse videos of it varying over the course of a day - while claiming he can replicate the Bishop in varying conditions: "Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year".
He's not shown any evidence that he's done this at all, let alone that he can consistently repeat the results. His (correct) claim that refraction is variable demonstrates that his other claim about consistently being about to reproduce the results is impossible.
Obviously if someone presents a photo like the black swan you can't really know what the atmospheric conditions were like when the photo was taken. Maybe if you look in to where and when it was taken you can approximate it, but it's impossible to be that accurate. But the you can infer the conditions from the photo. The photo IS the evidence.
Now, if someone showed me a photo which is completely impossible on a globe, something no amount of refraction or accounting for viewer height and so on could explain, then I'd take that seriously. I just haven't seen it yet.
-
It's possible that there is refraction over the Monterey Bay, but I have never seen it. It's a bay attached to the ocean with the distant target at a location where people are just resolvable by a high powered telescope. If there is disturbance in the air over the bay it is likely to build up to fog over the ocean environment. So there is either ocean fog, or it is clear.
AATW is well aware that the Flat Earth effect has been observed many times. There are probably over 500 videos of this observation on Youtube and throughout the Flat Earth streams. My observation does not need to be videotaped, and I don't live in that area anymore.
-
AATW is well aware that the Flat Earth effect has been observed many times.
It has been claimed many times. I dealt with that above. In every claim I've seen the claimant made a mistake - I've listed some of the mistakes I've seen made above.
There are probably over 500 videos of this observation on Youtube and throughout the Flat Earth streams.
Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.
My observation does not need to be videotaped
I'm somewhat surprised that in all the times you made this observation you didn't once think to take a photo or document it in enough detail that the claim can be examined.
-
It has been claimed many times. I dealt with that above. In every claim I've seen the claimant made a mistake - I've listed some of the mistakes I've seen made above.
You should correct yourself here. The people you are talking about actually went out and conducted observations and experiments. You merely tried to explain it away, while doing nothing further and providing no contradicting experiments of your own to settle the matter for us. The experiments are easy, yet you have consistently refused to even look.
Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.
The examples are readily available, and reproducible. Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.
My observation does not need to be videotaped
I'm somewhat surprised that in all the times you made this observation you didn't once think to take a photo or document it in enough detail that the claim can be examined.
Not required. Your disbelief is your own problem. The claim itself is evidence. Read a thesis sometime which describe conducted experiments and the level of photographic evidence given for the results claimed. The level of evidence I provided is consistent with the level of evidence for a plethora of science which has been conducted. You need to learn more. Claims are evidence. This is also why people have been sentenced to imprisonment based on the word of a single witness alone.
-
Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.
The examples are readily available, and reproducible. Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.
Of course photos of the globe earth from space are reproducible. That you personally don’t have the resources to reproduce them yourself does not mean that those who do have the resources can’t reproduce them.
-
Of course photos of the globe earth from space are reproducible. That you personally don’t have the resources to reproduce them yourself does not mean that those who do have the resources can’t reproduce them.
The issue isn’t whether someone, somewhere, with the right resources could reproduce those photos, it's that you're submitting them as reproducible evidence to a group that can't verify them. In any rigorous evaluation, if your peer reviewers or replicators lack the means to independently recreate your findings, your work gets stamped "unreproducible."
That's the standard: replicability isn’t about theoretical potential; it's about practical access for those assessing it. You don't get a passing grade because NASA might have a rocket lying around. Your submission fails because the reviewers can't test it themselves. And to be real, you haven't replicated it either, so you're asking for trust, not proof. The reasons for the resource gap might be an interesting footnote, but it doesn’t change anything. Unreproducible is unreproducible. End of.
-
In any rigorous evaluation, if your peer reviewers or replicators lack the means to independently recreate your findings, your work gets stamped "unreproducible."
The thing is, you aren’t a member of a peer group that is able to reproduce the results. Neither is anyone else here. So what? Does that mean that you should automatically disregard the results from those who are in that particular peer group and have reproduced the results?
Peer review means just that, review by one’s peers, not review by any schmuck on the street.
-
Does that mean that you should automatically disregard the results from those who are in that particular peer group and have reproduced the results?
Yes. Science zealots are too afraid of accepting that they just don't know something, and that right now they can't know it. Accepting unknowns would be a good first step, and I'm glad you suggested it unprompted.
-
The people you are talking about actually went out and conducted observations and experiments. You merely tried to explain it away
You are conflating "pointing out mistakes" with "explaining it away".
If someone makes an observation but makes a mistake - not accounting for viewer height, not accounting for the height above sea-level of the object they're observing and so on then that renders the observation, and the conclusion they have drawn from it invalid.
The experiments are easy, yet you have consistently refused to even look.
As the people I'm talking about above have shown, they're not actually that easy. There are lots of mistakes people make.
And as I've said, I don't feel the need to do experiments to gather evidence to prove something I already know to be true.
Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.
A fair number of amateurs have sent up balloons - the footage from that people like you "explain away".
Space tourism is still too expensive for most people but with a bit of crowd funding I'm sure a flat earther could be sent up.
Not required. Your disbelief is your own problem. The claim itself is evidence.
My disbelief isn't a problem at all. Yes, your claim is evidence. Yes, people can be convicted based on claims. But photographic and video evidence is more compelling.
And unfortunately your claim on this matter is impossible no matter what the shape of the earth.
You have provided the evidence for that yourself - you have shown time-lapse videos which demonstrate how inconsistent refraction is.
Those videos prove that your claim that "the same result comes up over and over throughout the year." cannot be true.
-
The official TFES model of the cosmos says that light is bending upwards (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration). The article argues that there is no reason to assume that light travels in straight lines, and that curved lines are more natural in nature.
The Double Slit Experiment has shown that light exhibits wave-like properties and discredits the old idea that light exists purely as discrete particles. Not only has it discredited the old particle theory of light, but it also appears to discredit the axiom that light travels in straight lines. In these experiments it is seen that wave interference produces curved paths.
I asked chatgpt if light travels in waves or as particles. This is what it gave me:
Light actually travels as both waves and particles — this is known as wave-particle duality, a central concept in quantum physics.
As waves, light shows behaviors like interference and diffraction. This explains phenomena like rainbows and the way light bends around corners.
As particles, light is made up of tiny packets of energy called photons. These photons can knock electrons off metal surfaces (the photoelectric effect), which can't be explained by wave theory alone.
So light isn’t just a wave or a particle — it’s kind of both, depending on how you observe it.
I believe this explains the bending that takes place when light travels through small apertures.
-
I asked chatgpt if light travels in waves or as particles.
For your own sake, please don't admit to things like this in public. I don't mean here - your reputation here is beyond salvation - but more generally.
-
I asked chatgpt if light travels in waves or as particles.
For your own sake, please don't admit to things like this in public. I don't mean here - your reputation here is beyond salvation - but more generally.
I thought shit posting was illegal here. I'll have to seek out an admin to complain to.
-
I thought shit posting was illegal here.
Yes - and I am now asking you to stop, politely. You know the drill well by now - the next time will be less polite.