The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2018, 04:05:53 AM

Title: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2018, 04:05:53 AM
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tontogary on April 06, 2018, 04:34:26 AM
Making this statement means you have proof and can share it with us?

Otherwise its a big hoax, and fake
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 06, 2018, 04:41:07 AM
Here is discussion of experiments showing that light bends upwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i1-NWTAGzY
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: douglips on April 06, 2018, 08:24:17 AM
a) This is a video of a guy reading a web page. If you'd like, you can visit the web page here:
http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/

b) The guy in the video says several times that the autoleveler is using a laser. This is not the case - the autoleveler in question is the Carl Zeiss NI 2, you sight through a telescope to see where your level mark is.

c) The expected curvature of the earth over 1 km is 8 cm. The measured bend was:
Code: [Select]
24.5.2001, 11am-12pm             No.2 from 12 to 14cm, no.3 over 14cm higher
07.04.2001, 6pm                  Both no.2 and no.3 about 16cm higher
07.05.2001, midnight to 2am      No.2 8cm higher, no.3 0cm (no difference)
07.05.2001, 8-9am                No.2 8cm, no.3 12cm higher
05.7.2001, 5-6pm                 No.2 16cm, no.3 18cm higher

Between 0 and 18 cm. So, whatever inaccuracies there are in the experiment setup, right in the middle of the range is the value you'd expect for the curvature of a convex earth. This document has a great list of surveying errors, and it includes things like: sunlight shining directly on the equipment and differentially heating parts of it. There are many many possible errors to consider.

d) For the second part of the video, he reads a different part of the same web page, about this experiment:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2012.236

I don't know how to interpret that experiment, but it is interesting.

e) 11:55 Now we're talking about evolution for some reason.

Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: junker on April 06, 2018, 02:27:28 PM
Making this statement means you have proof and can share it with us?

Otherwise its a big hoax, and fake

What statement did Tom make? It is simply a thread about an alternative theory that has been around in FE circles for a long time.

If you have nothing useful to add to the discussion, then don't bother posting in the upper fora. Warned.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tontogary on April 06, 2018, 02:52:25 PM
Making this statement means you have proof and can share it with us?

Otherwise its a big hoax, and fake

What statement did Tom make? It is simply a thread about an alternative theory that has been around in FE circles for a long time.

If you have nothing useful to add to the discussion, then don't bother posting in the upper fora. Warned.

In a previous thread I made a comment that nautical tables have been used for years are accurate and are have been proved to work. His reply was “prove it, you made the claim back it up”
Of course he was not warned but when I ask for proof, i get warned? Double standards?

Or is it a case of Tom just copied another theory, and posted it without making any direct claims?

To which i will retort With the theory that the the theory Tom posted is not based on accurate science, and ask him to show other accurate repeatable experiments that can backed up and repeated, peer reviewed And not just scalped from you tube.

The home page does make some suggestions to avoid believing what one finds on the internet or you tube.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2018, 04:30:20 PM
In a previous thread I made a comment that nautical tables have been used for years are accurate and are have been proved to work. His reply was “prove it, you made the claim back it up”
Of course he was not warned but when I ask for proof, i get warned? Double standards?
Tom is not making a claim. I'm pretty sure he's not an EAT proponent.

Or is it a case of Tom just copied another theory, and posted it without making any direct claims?
He didn't copy anything, either.

The home page does make some suggestions to avoid believing what one finds on the internet or you tube.
It does indeed.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: 6or1/2Dozen on April 06, 2018, 07:37:22 PM
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

I was also under the impression that Tom was not an EA proponent and the EA idea was dead and buried awhile ago.

[sarcasm]
I guess because it explains why the Solar Eclipse (the one where the Moon transits the Sun) is visible with at least around 50% totality from the ENTIRE daytime portion of the Earth at the EXACT SAME TIME.
[/sarcasm]

(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).

Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ix27ESd.jpg)
[Eclipse observations (time and totality) verified from points at Corpus Christi, all along the path of totality, Pittsburgh and everywhere in South America that didn't see it.]

EA does not correctly describe the observations obtained from the August 2017 Solar Eclipse. It seems to predicted an observable area more than twice the size, way more percentage of totality across that area and a much wider path of 100% totality. Could be the reason nobody is really subscribing to an EA model, seeing how easily it is shown to be inaccurate. It doesn't seem to fit what we (me at least) actually see in the world.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Rama Set on April 06, 2018, 08:05:12 PM
In a previous thread I made a comment that nautical tables have been used for years are accurate and are have been proved to work. His reply was “prove it, you made the claim back it up”
Of course he was not warned but when I ask for proof, i get warned? Double standards?
Tom is not making a claim. I'm pretty sure he's not an EAT proponent.

Or is it a case of Tom just copied another theory, and posted it without making any direct claims?
He didn't copy anything, either.

The home page does make some suggestions to avoid believing what one finds on the internet or you tube.
It does indeed.

If Tom did not make a claim or does not support this hypothesis, perhaps this thread should be moved from FE Debate to FE General?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Macarios on April 06, 2018, 08:17:16 PM
Let me remind you: This doesn't explain Twilight or Shadow of Horizon.
(Nor explains few other things...)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2im75sn.png)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 07, 2018, 03:17:54 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).

Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.

Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.

Let me remind you: This doesn't explain Twilight or Shadow of Horizon.
(Nor explains few other things...)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2im75sn.png)

Under the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory all light curves upwards.

There are also rays which miss the earth and make a u-turn back into space. The illustration in my first post only shows those rays which hit the earth. There will also be rays which miss the earth slightly. This is what causes clouds to appear to be lit from below after the sun is below the horizon in some photographs. This is also what causes the tops of mountains and skyscrapers to be illuminated, while the base is in shadow.

Per twilight after the sun sets, that is caused by light reflecting off of the atmosphere.

All of these phenomenons are explainable under this theory, and trivially so.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: xenotolerance on April 07, 2018, 04:08:44 AM
No, that isn't right.

If there is enough acceleration for light rays to curve back into space, then there could be no shadow - there would be no 'gap' of darkness between the light rays that meet the Earth just past the horizon and those that meet the mountain.

well

I'm rethinking this objection, but it's worth nothing that this contradicts the equation given on the wiki. And in that equation, there can be no shadow; the derivative approaches zero.

if there's ever going to be a value given for the Bishop constant or a clarification of the author's math, let them appear in this thread
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Macarios on April 07, 2018, 07:11:28 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).

Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.

Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.

Let me remind you: This doesn't explain Twilight or Shadow of Horizon.
(Nor explains few other things...)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2im75sn.png)

Under the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory all light curves upwards.

There are also rays which miss the earth and make a u-turn back into space. The illustration in my first post only shows those rays which hit the earth. There will also be rays which miss the earth slightly. This is what causes clouds to appear to be lit from below after the sun is below the horizon in some photographs. This is also what causes the tops of mountains and skyscrapers to be illuminated, while the base is in shadow.

Per twilight after the sun sets, that is caused by light reflecting off of the atmosphere.

All of these phenomenons are explainable under this theory, and trivially so.

Perfect !

Now, note the last beam that ends at 6pm just before the observer.
Next, draw the beam that will hit that top edge of the horizon shadow.
Finally, explain where would go beams that shine between them.
(How will they miss the observer?)

Second question: does light bend left-right as well?

Which mechanism explains simultaneous sunrise observations depicted below?
Now add directions of sunsets on the other side of North pole.
Does light bend left, or right?

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kz4wm.png)

Introducing Bendy Light will make every Flat Earther bend light the way they need, and it will surely make them conflict with each other.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: 6or1/2Dozen on April 09, 2018, 07:38:20 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).

Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.

Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.

[...]


Because I read the wiki and that's where it says it goes.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.

I could probably easily validate the angular diameter for the Moon and Sun at 29.3 to 34.1 and 31.6 to 32.7 arcminutes, respectively, as provided by Wikipedia.

However, you're the one who says geometry doesn't work at the distance of the Earth to the Moon, so why would I assume you would accept a calculated a distance from those figures (assuming the bodies are 32 miles in diameter)?  But that that really isn't a problem, if you want Sun and Moon around 3000 miles away, the math actually works (I was being condescending there, as I assumed that TFES came up with 32 miles by taking their stated distance of 3000(ish) miles and determining what size the Sun and Moon need to be match the observed angular measurements).

What I'm saying here is, I'm pretty sure I just reversed the math TFES did to come up with a 32 mile diameter. You can argue against it, but then your probably arguing against a TFES measurement as well.

Anyway...

The results would be 3226 - 3750 miles for the Moon and 3364 - 3481 miles for the Sun, clearly well within the range to be right next to each other (and colliding, one 4311 of a cosmic dance going on in FE land, BTW). Ultimately, your suggestion of decreasing the Moon's altitude doesn't match the established data obtained by TFES via observation.

Why should I lower the Moon's altitude to say 2000 miles, when the wiki states it is 'approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth', when the math the TFES used to determine it's size says it's at 3000 miles, when that's not where anyone's observations are placing it?

Let's even look a little closer, clearly the nature of the drawing is NOT TO SCALE. The Sun and Moon, as depicted there, are both like 300 miles in diameter when compared to their distance over the Earth's surface. What I penciled in was pretty much a BEST CASE SCENARIO separation, that is, the Sun at it's maximum elevation and the Moon at it's minimum. But, even drawn to scale it's not going to address the fact that this model does not fit the actual observation of an eclipse.

Here's a scale version with a generic Moon altitude of 3000 miles and Lunar/Solar separation of 32 miles (which seems like it could happen).
(https://i.imgur.com/AdgFy9k.jpg)
If the The Flat Earth Society would like to provide different & verifiable observational  data, I will be glad to redraw this to scale again, using it instead.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: wRadion on April 10, 2018, 12:10:15 AM
Yeah so instead of using simple geometry and science that explains everything about lights, stars, eclipse and so on, you think that a (somewhat) complex and completely counter-intuitive theory about light bending "upward" (what is "up"?) is completely believable?

At this point, I'm sure I come up with all kind of crazy theories like this that explains everything all by myself.

What do you want us to say?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2018, 05:02:07 PM
Perfect !

Now, note the last beam that ends at 6pm just before the observer.
Next, draw the beam that will hit that top edge of the horizon shadow.
Finally, explain where would go beams that shine between them.
(How will they miss the observer?)

Second question: does light bend left-right as well?

The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.

Quote
Which mechanism explains simultaneous sunrise observations depicted below?
Now add directions of sunsets on the other side of North pole.
Does light bend left, or right?

http://i66.tinypic.com/kz4wm.png

Introducing Bendy Light will make every Flat Earther bend light the way they need, and it will surely make them conflict with each other.

Firstly, there is no Flat Earth map, so I am not sure why you need me to explain something about a map that we have not adopted. That map is just for illustration purposes.

Secondly, we would require you to submit records of those observations if you want any traction with these arguments of "what should happen if the earth were a globe."
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2018, 05:07:48 PM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.

If you read through our Phases of the Moon article (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) you will find that the height of the sun and moon is not static, and that they are rising and falling in altitude to create the phases on the moon. If they are rising and falling to create the phases, it is unrealistic that they are always at the same or very similar altitudes.

Also, the word "approximately" is a synonym of "more or less" and "in the neighborhood of." See: Google dictionary. (https://www.google.com/search?q=approximitely)

Yeah so instead of using simple geometry and science that explains everything about lights, stars, eclipse and so on, you think that a (somewhat) complex and completely counter-intuitive theory about light bending "upward" (what is "up"?) is completely believable?

At this point, I'm sure I come up with all kind of crazy theories like this that explains everything all by myself.

What do you want us to say?

We are expecting you to participate and discuss the validity of this theory.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Macarios on April 10, 2018, 05:43:45 PM
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.

So, you are saying that those beams inbetween will...

Firstly, there is no Flat Earth map, so I am not sure why you need me to explain something about a map that we have not adopted. That map is just for illustration purposes.
Secondly, we would require you to submit records of those observations if you want any traction with these arguments of "what should happen if the earth were a globe."

I'm asking you to explain things to yourself.
Are you "zetetic" enough?
I already devoted the whole thread to explaining how to develop and test tool for obtaining Sun-related data.
Use it.
I use SunCalc.org
You don't have to trust it.
Test whichever you want.

When people say "question everything", it doesn't mean "question globe only, and believe blindly what we tell you for Flat model". :)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 10, 2018, 06:06:38 PM
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.

So, you are saying that those beams inbetween will...

Please more clearly explain what you mean by "beams inbetween." In between what?

Quote
I'm asking you to explain things to yourself.
Are you "zetetic" enough?
I already devoted the whole thread to explaining how to develop and test tool for obtaining Sun-related data.
Use it.
I use SunCalc.org
You don't have to trust it.
Test whichever you want.

When people say "question everything", it doesn't mean "question globe only, and believe blindly what we tell you for Flat model". :)

Suncalc.org appears to be a calculator, not a list of observations.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Macarios on April 10, 2018, 06:42:37 PM
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.

So, you are saying that those beams inbetween will...

Please more clearly explain what you mean by "beams inbetween." In between what?

Exactly as I said, which you can read again if you scroll up:

"Note the last beam at 6pm, ending just before the observer.
Draw the beam that will hit the top of the shadow of horizon (lowest edge of illuminated part of the mountain).
Now tell us where will go beams between those two, how will tey avoid observer."

More understandable now?

Speaking of horizon, if the light comig from horizon curves up, it means that horizon is not where we see it?
Does it mean that horizon just looks to be at eye level, and actually is higher?
Light curving up shows that ground towards horizon is not really horizontal, only looks like it.

Sun looks to be at horizon, but is still actually 5005 kilometers high.
The same mechanism shows horizon to be at some altitude as well.
Yes, horizon is closer and lower than the Sun, but it is still higher than we see it.

Or light from horizon and light from Sun are "two different types of light"?

Quote
I'm asking you to explain things to yourself.
Are you "zetetic" enough?
I already devoted the whole thread to explaining how to develop and test tool for obtaining Sun-related data.
Use it.
I use SunCalc.org
You don't have to trust it.
Test whichever you want.

When people say "question everything", it doesn't mean "question globe only, and believe blindly what we tell you for Flat model". :)

Suncalc.org appears to be a calculator, not a list of observations.

Yes.
It shows azimuth of sunrise and sunset as well.
And you can test it by calling someone "there" to confirm.
Publisher of the calculator already knows that you can test it as much as you want.
They don't know where would be the "there" for any possible user and any possible person they could call next.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 10, 2018, 07:39:17 PM
The rays are curving upwards, and so the last rays may miss the observer but hit the top of the mountain.

Is this your new explanation for clouds lit from below and shadows of mountains cast upwards?
Because before you said it was "perspective" and stuck to that despite my repeated explanations that shadow angle does not change because of perspective.
This answer is marginally better. Probably creates a whole heap of other problems though.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: 6or1/2Dozen on April 10, 2018, 10:02:15 PM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.

If you read through our Phases of the Moon article (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) you will find that the height of the sun and moon is not static, and that they are rising and falling in altitude to create the phases on the moon. If they are rising and falling to create the phases, it is unrealistic that they are always at the same or very similar altitudes.

Also, the word "approximately" is a synonym of "more or less" and "in the neighborhood of." See: Google dictionary. (https://www.google.com/search?q=approximitely)

I ask you kindly to refrain from straw-manning me. I do not appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

I never disagreed that these measurements are not "approximately" or "more or less" 3000(ish) miles.
I did not make any assertions contrary to the idea that that the variation of the angular measurement of these bodies over time was due to anything other than a variation in their altitudes over the Earth.

My comment to the nature of the 'FE cosmic dance' was, in fact, born out of the idea that orbits the Sun and the Moon are NOT delimited by time, space or altitude but we are supposed to believe they are non-interfering (i.e. timed and choreographed so perfectly as not to collide while sharing a constantly varying space and altitude).

My only contention was that 2000 miles is NOT approximately 3000 miles, and thus, refused to reposition the Moon to someplace that was NOT approximately 3000 miles. Are you suggesting that 2000 miles IS approximately 3000 miles?

Did you miss this part:

Quote
The results would be 3226 - 3750 miles for the Moon and 3364 - 3481 miles for the Sun, clearly well within the range to be right next to each other (and colliding, one 4311 of a cosmic dance going on in FE land, BTW). Ultimately, your suggestion of decreasing the Moon's altitude doesn't match the established data obtained by TFES via observation.

It's where I gave the range of the altitudes for both the Moon and Sun, based upon their angular measurements and assuming a diameter of 32 miles.

At any given point in time, the Moon would be located at some altitude not less than 3226 miles and not more than 3750 miles, above the surface of the Earth. The Sun would likewise be no less than 3364 miles and no more than 3481 miles above the Earth.

As noted in the link you proved:

Quote
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

[omitted]

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs. [emphasis added]

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

Clearly, since you are the one providing the link, you must agree that the Moon can be below the Sun. It's minimum altitude is less than the Sun's, it can also be above because of it's greater maximum altitude. Is there some reason we should think that the Moon cannot be at it's minimum altitude (3226 miles) while the Sun is at it's maximum (3481 miles)?

Does this not "approximately" or "more or less" match the position that I added the Moon into the drawing you provided, given that the Sun and Moon are represented by circles that would be 300 miles in diameter based on the scale distance to the Earth's surface in the drawing?

Here's math if you want it. Sun maxOrd 3481 miles less Moon minOrd 3226 miles = 255 miles of separation. That is the greatest vertical separation that can occur between the two when the Moon is below the Sun. That is the best case scenario, they can only get closer together from there.

A circle with a diameter of 300 miles has a radius of 150 miles, to place the center of two such circles 255 miles apart, should they be drawn:

A) Touching
B) Overlapping by 45 miles (about 7%)
C) With the Moon 1/3 closer to the surface of the Earth

Really the answer is B, most certainly not C, and I picked A, as the drawing was not to scale anyway.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 26, 2018, 02:57:34 AM
It's really hard to know where to start with this. There's a very simple drawing showing the path of light from the sun, in one side view. What about every other object we're looking at in the room we're sitting in?

I have a very hard time knowing how to even begin to flesh out that concept, let alone refute it. Can someone please explain how i might even attempt to show why a scene appears like below using "curved light"? Perhaps that's my own confirmation bias: I would start by drawing a point representing where my eye is in the top and side view. But once i do that, then the explanation of how the perspective view forms is inescapable to me. I mean, how can i draw a curved line towards the second post when it's obviously a straight line towards my eye? A real head scratcher! If this curved light idea is such an elegant simple concept that it can be drawn as the top image with a sun and curved light, then surely the same can be done with my very simple train yard scene?

(https://i.imgur.com/6H7v4UF.png)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 26, 2018, 06:43:34 AM
Something like this maybe? If light isn't shining directly in to our eyes, but curving, then it must be curving on to some sort of image plane right? And then the image from that plane enters our brain "somehow" and opening and closing our eyes just turns that image on and off? It's not actually light entering our eyes at all? Help me out here people!
(https://i.imgur.com/wJ9Br0J.png)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 28, 2018, 05:42:41 AM
Also, why is this effect described as "light bending upwards"... If you take your sun as an example, rather than light going straight to the viewer, it is being pulled DOWNWARDS... If you're looking at an apparently "image" of the sun in the distance at 5pm and it appears a lot lower then it really is, then the light is being pulled downwards right?

And we know perspective doesn't just work on objects above us... for example, if you were looking at a sun set, you could lie on your side right? So any curving effect would happen in any direction, like i've drawn above yes? So it's not really about light curving "downwards" it's more about light curving "inwards" on an image plane where the observer is in the middle of that image plane?

And if you believe there's some sort of "force" that's bending the light, then if there's two observers standing 100 meters besides each other, towards which observer will the light curve? They'll obviously get a different "perspective" view as they're in different positions, but with this "light curving" theory of flat earth, how could the light curve in different directions and amounts for different viewers?

So it wouldnt be a "universal" force equal for both viewers, but a completely subjective force depending on the viewer? So our brains decide how to curve the light? Or does god decide how to curve the light uniquely for each person? Then how come cameras see light curving differently for different objects? Are our cameras alive too? Does god love cameras?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Mark_1984 on May 28, 2018, 05:58:06 AM
So, if the light is curving (interesting theory!) then it must be curving round the sphere, giving the illusion that the sphere is flat.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 28, 2018, 06:49:53 AM
And if you stand upside down, does it curve back the other way? So the sun appears directly overhead at 5pm if you're upside down?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 28, 2018, 10:40:17 PM
Also, why is this effect described as "light bending upwards"... If you take your sun as an example, rather than light going straight to the viewer, it is being pulled DOWNWARDS...
No, it isn't.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 28, 2018, 11:44:23 PM
Also, why is this effect described as "light bending upwards"... If you take your sun as an example, rather than light going straight to the viewer, it is being pulled DOWNWARDS...
No, it isn't.

Oh i see, so all light goes directly downwards like a spot light, and then it curves upwards, but it curves upwards at different amounts depending on how far away you are... so the light at the very centre of the sun goes directly downwards, but the very edges of the sun curve outwards towards viewers at 5pm?

So wouldn't the sun appear as a tiny dot to all viewers given only a fraction of the light is curving towards them? The only light entering your eye would be from less than a pupil-width spot of light from the sun?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 29, 2018, 07:58:51 AM
So wouldn't the sun appear as a tiny dot to all viewers given only a fraction of the light is curving towards them? The only light entering your eye would be from less than a pupil-width spot of light from the sun?
No, the Sun is not a laser. But yes, it stands to reason that not all light rays would reach you, personally. This is true regardless of EA, and does not affect the perceived size of the object.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 29, 2018, 08:39:50 AM
How would it not effect the perceived size? If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from you, then THAT is perceived size? You could think of the sun as a shower head right? If only the drops at the edge of the shower head reach your "eye", then you haven't see the rest of the shower head yes?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on May 29, 2018, 10:58:13 AM
If you want to see an object as a whole, at least some light from it's surface has to reach your eye, but of course not all the light.  The amount of light does not determine the apparent size, but the brightness of the object. If there are inhomogeneities in the light distribution, then the perceived brightness distribution of the object will be inhomogeneous, too.

It seems that the EA idea assumes that the light emission of the sun is isotropic, but depending on the angle between the earth surface and the direction of a particular light beam the angle is continuously increased which results in a bending of the light path. But cause we assume a straight light path, the apparent position of the sun is moving down in the sky the further we are away from the sun.

This would explain, why the further north or south relative to the equator you go, the sun is lower in the sky at noon and it would explain sunrise/sunset in the east and west, respectively.

But it also has some inherent inconsistencies. E.g. the spreading of the light would be nonlinear, therefore the intensity goes down the further away you are. This might work for sunrise/sunset, but not at noon along the north-south direction. The change in intensity is not comparable.

But the biggest problem, is the total lack of experimental evidence that light can be curved in that way (beside in general relativity due to bended space by great masses). Photons carry no charge, so they do not interact with electromagnetic-fields in that way. Light can be scattered, refracted, reflected, can be absorbed, it can be changed in frequency, and it's polarization can be rotated (also by magentic or electric fields), it can be trapped in resonators, it can be interfered and some other things, but nothing like this EA was ever observed experimentally and no theory indicates this possibility.           
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 29, 2018, 11:08:20 AM
If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from you
Given that this is not the case, the rest of your deduction becomes irrelevant.

Your showerhead analogy assumes that the Sun is an array of lasers, which it is not.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: rabinoz on May 29, 2018, 11:51:15 AM
How would it not effect the perceived size? If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from you, then THAT is perceived size? You could think of the sun as a shower head right? If only the drops at the edge of the shower head reach your "eye", then you haven't see the rest of the shower head yes?
I don't accept the "Electromagnetic Accelerator", but I don't see that it affects the amount of the sun's disc that can be seen.
Each point on the sun emits light in all directions and the EA just changes the direction that light seems to come from - very much as a lens would.
So the only effect it would have on the apparent size of the sun is due to the increased distance the light must travel. There isn't much more that can be said as it is little more than a suggestion.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 30, 2018, 01:41:05 AM
If you can't see certain parts of the object because the light is curving away from you
Given that this is not the case, the rest of your deduction becomes irrelevant.

Your showerhead analogy assumes that the Sun is an array of lasers, which it is not.

Huh? The EA theory specifically shows light going downwards like a laser. If light was going on all directions, then why not draw a diagram that shows that? Also EA specifically shows that light at the edge curves towards distant viewers.

So you're saying things that are in direct conflict with the EA diagram but not giving any explanation?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 30, 2018, 09:05:08 AM
So if you DON'T believe that light from the sun starts by pointing straight downwards (like laser array), like the EA diagram at the top says, then assumedly you believe light works how scientists say it does in that it emanates from the light source in multiple directions? Or are you saying it only emits light in rays away from the centre?

Either way, here's an example with the EA diagram showing "Other" directions of light... I've chosen directions at about 45 degrees from the direction given in the EA diagram. You see the problem right? The observer at mid day will see light from the sun not just above them, but also towards the horizon... and that's just with ONE example of extra light directions. To my mind, the EA theory relies on a belief that light starts by travelling straight down towards the earth... Or maybe it's just a badly drawn diagram, and that all light emanates away from the centre of the sun? That's still a laser array effectively right? All light rays coming from the sun can be traced back to a single point? The only light entering your eye will be from rays that fit within your pupil? Though I haven't really heard how you relate EA to actual "vision" yet, the image plane concept is the only one that seems to make sense to me and you haven't addressed that at all, or how other objects are affected by perspective.

(https://i.imgur.com/jZc4bge.png)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 30, 2018, 12:05:20 PM
Huh? The EA theory specifically shows light going downwards like a laser.
No, it doesn't.

If light was going on all directions, then why not draw a diagram that shows that?
Because it would be absolutely and thoroughly unreadable.

Also EA specifically shows that light at the edge curves towards distant viewers.
Yes.

So if you DON'T believe that light from the sun starts by pointing straight downwards (like laser array)
I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?

Obviously some of the light rays will start off pointing straight down. Do you actually not understand the difference between a laser beam and a more standard light source?

(https://i.imgur.com/jZc4bge.png)
I'm going to focus on just one ray in your proposed diagram, and I'll ask you a simple question to help my understanding of what you're proposing.

(https://i.imgur.com/n9JMlP2.png)

Please explain to me why you think the ray you drew is accelerating upwards at a constant rate. In fact, please explain why you think any single ray you drew is accelerating upwards at a constant rate.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 31, 2018, 12:37:13 AM
I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?

I am trying as hard as i can to get more information from you that I can listen to. You're asking me to explain to you why the contradiction I've given doesn't fit the EA diagram?? That's my point: what you're saying is inconsistent with what I know about EA (which is very little: it just seems to be that one diagram?)

Let's try another tack... let's assume EA is true. The rays of light starting from the sun, are they more like the first picture (emenating from the centre) or the second picture (essentially random in all directions). And remember: we're assuming ea to be TRUE, so I realise that after their initial direction, they would curve upwards as you're explained.

Centric:
(https://i.imgur.com/rgInZgY.png)

Random:
(https://i.imgur.com/2e4yFKf.png)



Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: rabinoz on May 31, 2018, 04:54:44 AM
I didn't say that. Would you please stop trying to guess what people are saying and listen for a while?

I am trying as hard as i can to get more information from you that I can listen to. You're asking me to explain to you why the contradiction I've given doesn't fit the EA diagram?? That's my point: what you're saying is inconsistent with what I know about EA (which is very little: it just seems to be that one diagram?)

Let's try another tack... let's assume EA is true. The rays of light starting from the sun, are they more like the first picture (emenating from the centre) or the second picture (essentially random in all directions). And remember: we're assuming ea to be TRUE, so I realise that after their initial direction, they would curve upwards as you're explained.

Centric:
(https://i.imgur.com/rgInZgY.png)

Random:
(https://i.imgur.com/2e4yFKf.png)
I don't know how Pete Svarrior will answer, but here are my thoughts on the matter.
Your top diagram is that of a point light source. If the flat earth or Globe sun behaved that way the sun would appear as a point, not a disk about half a degree across.

On a larger light source every point radiates in every direction, though not always with equal intensity in each direction.
So your lower diagram is a more accurate description of the light from the sun, where the light from all points on the surface can reach your eyes.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2018, 08:15:56 AM
You're asking me to explain to you why the contradiction I've given doesn't fit the EA diagram??
No, I'm trying to get you to understand that what you're saying is internally inconsistent.

Forget UA for a moment. Just consider light. Any given part of a light source will emit light in all possible directions. I have no idea why you think this would be any different with EA, but it isn't. The diagram doesn't suggest that different parts of the Sun emits light in different directions, but simply spaces the vectors out so they can still be visible. You could just as well have them all coming out of the same point of origin.

Carry on forgetting about UA for a moment. Let's look at the red lines you've drawn. Remember, we're looking at something where you decided the initial angle, but its initial speed and the acceleration it's subjected to is set in stone. We can easily illustrate this problem as a much simpler (and, to an extent, analogous) classical mechanics issue.

To explain why what you're saying is nonsense, let's do exactly that. Here's a very simple physics problem, a cannonball is shot at a certain angle and speed, air resistance is ignored, and we only consider how far it will go before it falls.

(https://i.imgur.com/sqQkEpc.png)

Pay attention to the shape of the curve. Now, compare it to what you propose for an angle of 45 degrees in an analogous situation. Notice how your light ray doesn't curve at all? That's analogous to the cannonball magically zooming away into space. Or compare it to the one ray I highlighted for you earlier - in which the cannonball goes backwards and upwards, like some crazy boomerang.

The issue here isn't that you don't understand EA, but that you are completely lost as to what a constant upward acceleration would look like in any context.

The rays of light starting from the sun, are they more like the first picture (emenating from the centre) or the second picture (essentially random in all directions).
Neither accurately describes how light sources behave, regardless of whether you want to consider EA, FE or RE. That said, rabinoz is correct in that the bottom diagram is slightly less wrong.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 09:21:04 AM
If you look at the original illustration there is another obvious drawback of the EA concept. The 6am/6pm approach the surface almost tangential, therefor the sun would appear to stay just at the horizon, but not behind or below the horizon. And that would be the lowest point. Because of the constant upward acceleration the beams that are emitted under a slightly larger angel would approach the observer in an upward direction. That would lead to the paradox that sun would appear as being below the surface but still be visible.

This could be solved if one would assume that the upward acceleration is not constant, it stops acting on light that is tangential to the surface, but then the sun would never disappear, it would stay all the time at the horizon until its starts to rise again.

Another problem is the light that shines perpendicular onto the surface. If we take the term constant acceleration literally, this light would feel a acceleration in the opposite direction towards the sun, so it would be slow downed. And cause of the speed of light is the product of wavelength and frequency, either both of them or at least one of them would have to change.

Similar problems would occur for the other directions. The horizontal velocity component would be unaffected,while the vertical component would slow down. For the tangential 6am/6pm light, the vertical component would be zero, so the light would propagate with the initial horizontal component parallel to the earth surface. Lets assume an initial angle of 45° for this light, the speed of light would reduced by a factor 1/sqrt(2). The morning or evening light from the sun would therfor be significantly slower than the light emitted directly parallel to the surface....             
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2018, 09:25:00 AM
but not behind or below the horizon
This is untrue. Eventually, some parts of the Sun would become invisible because all of the light emitted by them would curve away from the observer, rather than reach him. There is nothing tangential about it, because the acceleration is constant and upward. Making it something other than constant would create the problem you're describing.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 10:55:07 AM
That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.

Its like the example of the projectile movement. At the highest point of the parabola the motion is parallel to the surface.

Of course it is only tangential at one point, it does not continuously follow this direction. But that's even worse, because for every one further away the light approaches him by an negative angle, therefore pointing upwards, so it would appear as if the sun is inside the earth.

Just look at the illustration of the projectile motion and extrapolate the apparent origin of the projectile along every point of its curve assuming that the projectile is going straight at every point. That's how the EA concept let's you think the sun is sinking in the sky, the light is curved, but the apparent position of the sun is the linear extrapolation of the light direction if it approaches you.     
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2018, 11:02:22 AM
That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.
Oh, I see, by "tangential" you mean "at some point it is briefly tangential". Sure, for some light rays that will be the case sometimes.

Your point?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 11:12:06 AM
Seems to be difficult to understand... I can try again... When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth. So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.

It would simply never disappear.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2018, 11:41:51 AM
When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth.
So far, so good. We call this phenomenon "night".

So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.
No, it wouldn't. Those light rays would never reach an observer.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 12:06:23 PM
Then you agree that the furthest light rays approach the observer tangential with an angle of 0°? But then the sun stays at the horizon, and not below the horizon.

But if the light rays are continuously curved beyond 0° than you will see the light coming from below.

It is very simple and obvious to see if you just draw one more light ray to the left or right in the figure of the original post.

Otherwise, the figure is made in a very clever way. Who ever made it just left out the critical parts where the light light beams emerging from the sun under such a flat angle that the light is curved upwards in the literal sense.

And just as a reminder, in case you think such flat angles are not possible: "Any given part of a light source will emit light in all possible directions." 
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on May 31, 2018, 12:46:56 PM
Forget UA for a moment. Just consider light. Any given part of a light source will emit light in all possible directions.

Cool. We're getting somewhere

I have no idea why you think this would be any different with EA, but it isn't.

I have no idea what EA theory is, simply putting down some possibilities seeing as the information is limited

The issue here isn't that you don't understand EA, but that you are completely lost as to what a constant upward acceleration would look like in any context.

I'm well aware of what acceleration is: not lost in the slightest. I'm not aware of what EA is, because it isn't explained in that diagram or anywhere else.

So again, going back to my image... if there is a force pushing light upwards, are there also forces pushing some light sideways? Are you proposing EA as a complete alternative to perspective? Or is it only an upwards force pulling light upwards? If that's the case, why do train tracks converge? Why the lamps in my example move towards the middle? Is it just an extra force being applied on the light paths of "regular" perspective? (because this was presented as an alternative...)

(https://i.imgur.com/wJ9Br0J.png)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2018, 01:51:39 PM
I have no idea what EA theory is, simply putting down some possibilities seeing as the information is limited
And I already asked you to refrain from making things up - it will get you nowhere.

I'm well aware of what acceleration is: not lost in the slightest.
Then please explain how your diagrams are consistent with the idea of constant upwards acceleration.

So again, going back to my image... if there is a force pushing light upwards, are there also forces pushing some light sideways?
No.

Are you proposing EA as a complete alternative to perspective?
No.

Or is it only an upwards force pulling light upwards?
Nobody said it was a force, nor that only light would be affected.

If that's the case, why do train tracks converge? Why the lamps in my example move towards the middle? Is it just an extra force being applied on the light paths of "regular" perspective? (because this was presented as an alternative...)
It was not presented as an alternative to perspective, and it is not one. It is an alternative explanation of sunrise and sunset from Rowbotham's perspective explanation.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 02:34:21 PM
If it is not a force, what is it? Acceleration is usually seen as originating in a force acting on an object which leads to a change of velocity and/or direction. Are there examples where something is accelerated without a force acting on it?

What else is affected? I'm not sure if light is seen here as electromagnetic wave. If yes, I would assume that also microwaves, radio-waves, THz radiation, x-rays, UV and IR light, etc. are effected. Something beyond that? Charged particles like electrons or protons? Also neutrons and neutrinos? The Higgs-Boson?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 31, 2018, 05:08:02 PM
If it is not a force, what is it?
I didn't say it isn't one.

I'm not sure if light is seen here as electromagnetic wave.
It is.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 01, 2018, 12:07:52 AM
I already asked you to refrain from making things up - it will get you nowhere [...] It was not presented as an alternative to perspective, and it is not one. It is an alternative explanation of sunrise and sunset from Rowbotham's perspective explanation.

To be fair: isn't EA theory just "making things up"? In attempting to try to understand it, given that information is limited, then yes, i "make things up" as possibilities for how it may or may not work.

You moved my post on how perspective works because you believe it's just "RE Perspective", and not up for debate. (I accept that, and I'm not arguing that decision here, i realise it's not the right forum/procedure to do so). I was under the impression that Electromagnetic Accelerator was put forward as an alternative... as part of that debate. But if you're saying EA is an ADDITIONAL effect, then are you saying you now accept that the core principles of "RE Perspective" are beyond dispute and accepted fact?

I'm surprised Tom hasn't chipped in: he's posting EA as an alternative to perspective in other posts. Perhaps I misread: perhaps he too is saying it's just an additional effect to perspective.

I empathise that EA isn't something you would know all the facts about and I don't expect you to. I apologise if i'm appearing forceful or belligerent in any way: all i'm trying to do is flesh this idea out and explore where it falls down or stands up.

So let's recap:

Is that about right?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2018, 06:13:30 AM
are you saying you now accept that the core principles of "RE Perspective" are beyond dispute and accepted fact?
You continue trying to conflate my actions as a moderator with my personal views. The two are firmly separate, and I don't appreciate your repeated attempts at changing that. Naturally, I can't claim perfection, but I do make a conscious effort to leave my views out of my moderation.

Also, the fact that EA exists independently of other aspects does not require me to make any statement about said other aspects - that's the very point of "independence".

Perhaps I misread: perhaps he too is saying it's just an additional effect to perspective.
That is how it reads to me, but obviously I can't be completely certain.

So let's recap:
  • There might be "something" that bends light from the sun upwards
  • It might not be a force but it might be a force
  • It might only affect electromagnetic waves or it might affect other things
  • There's an additional unknown explanation for why objects appear smaller in the distance

Is that about right?
I mean, on a technicality, yes, but if you're going to make a list of all things that I didn't make a definitive statement here due to them being off-topic, then you're going to need a much longer list. And it'll still be largely irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 01, 2018, 08:18:51 AM
Like I said, im not questioning that moderator decision per say. If I did, I would raise that in an appropriate channel. If this is an additional effect, it would be nice to get a consensus on what it is additional to... Obviously you can't speak for all of flat earth.

As for the list: how are they off topic?? Are you actually interested in analysing and debating EA? There's very little information on it that I can see, so just wondering what the details are. An understanding that fe isn't sure if it's a force or not is a detail in itself. I can start  to work from there.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2018, 08:29:03 AM
There's very little information on it that I can see, so just wondering what the details are.
You keep saying that. I'm honestly not sure why. Saying it over and over won't make it any less false.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 01, 2018, 10:30:32 AM
There's very little information on it that I can see, so just wondering what the details are.
You keep saying that. I'm honestly not sure why. Saying it over and over won't make it any less false.

There's a picture, and there's you're short responses. Have I missed something? I don't get why you're taking this so personally and acting so irritable.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2018, 10:34:49 AM
There's a picture, and there's you're short responses. Have I missed something?
Yes. A quick Google search reveals a couple of Wiki pages and discussion threads across both this forum and the old one. As others have pointed out, this is a very old theory.

I don't get why you're taking this so personally and acting so irritable.
Neither of these things are taking place. I'm simply supplying you with factual statements.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 06, 2018, 02:58:15 AM
On further research, i can find a few formulas people have created: essentially just trivial graph building to fit a hypothesis rather than anything linked to observation either before or after the fact.

Besides, it might "explain" why the sun appears to set, but it doesn't explain how the sun can fail to shrink due to perspective. If anything, it should shrink MORE given the effective distance is greater, i.e. the paths of light are longer.

Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards... then the top of the sun would disappear before the bottom of the sun right? (actually i think i've heard someone mention that before... didn't realise it was from the EA theory though)

And the problem given above: if you were on a mountain, you should be able to look down at the earth after sun set and see the sun appear between you and the earth. If some paths of light curve down and then back up in to the sky, then an observer would "see" some of those upward travelling light rays that didn't end up touching the earth. I understand the distances involved are huge and the maths is just a guess, but if this were the case, there would at least ONE photo of at least one spot of light from the sun appearing BELOW the horizon?

It does appear to be a very old theory... most of the stuff is around 2009. But clearly there's still some who present it as a possible explanation (Tom being one of them)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2018, 05:24:38 AM
Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards... then the top of the sun would disappear before the bottom of the sun right?
Wrong. And, again, the Sun does not project light rays in a single direction.

And the problem given above: if you were on a mountain, you should be able to look down at the earth after sun set and see the sun appear between you and the earth. If some paths of light curve down and then back up in to the sky, then an observer would "see" some of those upward travelling light rays that didn't end up touching the earth. I understand the distances involved are huge and the maths is just a guess, but if this were the case, there would at least ONE photo of at least one spot of light from the sun appearing BELOW the horizon?
This is an absurd suggestion, which, again, seems to assume that sunlight is somehow comparable to an array of lasers. The *actual* effects of light curving upwards in this fashion is that you'll expect sunset to occur later as your elevation increases - which is hardly a "problem" - and that you will still see some sunlight after the Sun has apparently dipped below the horizon in its entirety - again, hardly controversial.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 06, 2018, 08:30:56 AM
Yep fully aware that we agree that light is projecting in many directions.

What part of "the sun has a top and a bottom" suggests i think that? You have said yourself that this is about light rays being pulled upwards yes? So put aside the complicated job of accounting for every single direction of light for a second, and it seems obvious to me that where an object is project rays that go downwards then up again (and yes, there are rays that just go straight, and rays that go up, and they are pulled upwards accordingly and never seen) but the light rays from the top of an object, would have more light rays curving downwards and then moving upwards without hitting the earth, then the bottom of that object.

As for the mountain idea: how is that absurd? If SOME rays of light are starting to go downwards then being pushed upwards, then you have that problem. I think we've previously agreed that this "force" or whatever you want to call it is pulling upwards on ALL rays of light yes? (i.e. remember that time i drew a diagram showing rays of light that WEREN'T pulled upwards and you pointed out how silly that was?)

So yes, light goes in all directions, however SOME rays of light, are obviously going to start going downwards slightly, and then be pulled upwards and never appear to the viewer... the point the sun "sets" is where the rays of light transition from being curved towards the viewer, to being curved up in to the sky yes? Ergo... if the observer goes higher, then they rays of light will be curved upwards in to their eye... Observers at ground level will ALSO have this happen... but the effect will be a lot more noticeable up a mountain. And yes, i agree, sun set will appear later up a mountain, just like real life... but i think you need to refer back to your parabolic path example of how forces work. Notice the shape? That would be the same for the rays of light, but upside down right?

Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 06, 2018, 09:28:33 AM
... or think of it this way: if the sun sets in EA theory because light rays start to be pulled upwards above the viewer so the sun is no longer visible, do you think this would occur first to the top of the object or the bottom of the object?

To my mind, the point at which the light rays bend above you, starts to happen to the top of the sun before it happens to the bottom of the sun... And again, fully realise light rays are going in all different directions, but we're talking about the LAST rays of light yes? At some point absolutely NO rays of light reach the observer, because they are all being pulled upwards away from the observer. The distance sufficient for the top rays of light to be pulled away from the observer occurs before the bottom, because the top is higher than the bottom.

Sorry for double post: bit larger than just an edit!
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2018, 10:14:36 AM
And the problem given above: if you were on a mountain, you should be able to look down at the earth after sun set and see the sun appear between you and the earth. If some paths of light curve down and then back up in to the sky, then an observer would "see" some of those upward travelling light rays that didn't end up touching the earth. I understand the distances involved are huge and the maths is just a guess, but if this were the case, there would at least ONE photo of at least one spot of light from the sun appearing BELOW the horizon?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1VPtFwFbbI

https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g60933-d103161-i273959144-Sandia_Peak_Tramway-Albuquerque_New_Mexico.html
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 06, 2018, 10:35:05 AM
Thanks Tom. There you have it... Bottom disappears first, and the sun disappears below the horizon and not between the viewer and the earth.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 06, 2018, 11:19:49 AM
What part of "the sun has a top and a bottom" suggests i think that?
None. But let's ask a more honest question. Which part of "Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards" suggests that you think they project light in a single direction?

Why, it's this part: "Plus if you think of the sun as having a "top" and a "bottom" point... both with light rays that are pointing downwards then being pushed/pulled upwards"

As for the mountain idea: how is that absurd? If SOME rays of light are starting to go downwards then being pushed upwards, then you have that problem.
No, that simply doesn't follow. Yes, some of the light will eventually stop reaching the observer. Specificially, those rays projected from the bottom of the Sun.

I think we've previously agreed that this "force" or whatever you want to call it is pulling upwards on ALL rays of light yes? (i.e. remember that time i drew a diagram showing rays of light that WEREN'T pulled upwards and you pointed out how silly that was?)
Yes, that was rather silly. But you still seem fundamentally confused about the consequences of light rays being constantly accelerated upwards.

the point the sun "sets" is where the rays of light transition from being curved towards the viewer, to being curved up in to the sky yes?
No.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 08, 2018, 03:19:48 AM
the point the sun "sets" is where the rays of light transition from being curved towards the viewer, to being curved up in to the sky yes?
No.

So when does sun set occur then?

If there are rays pointing in all directions being pulled upwards away from the earth, then the sun can be seen when those light rays hit the observer, and NOT seen when those light rays DON'T reach the observer. Just look at that diagram in OP: the light rays at sun set are the final rays that are bending so much that the sun appears directly in front of the observer at sun set. If the observer is FURTHER away, or the sun is further away, then it follows that none of the rays of light will reach the observer any more, because they either hit the earth infront of the observer, or they bend upwards above the observer. No light rays reach the observer, therefore the sun has "set".

No matter what direction the light rays are emitted from the sun, there is no way to avoid the upward pull, just like an archer: they have a limit to the power they can fire an arrow, and gravity or "the force which is accelerating the ground upwards at 9.8m/s/s" is constant: they can aim higher or lower to affect the trajectory and the distance of the arrow, but there's still a limit to how far they can fire the arrow. The sun can emit light rays in all directions, but if all rays are being pulled upwards, then there's a limit to how far those sun rays can reach.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 08, 2018, 04:14:45 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)

Here's the original image with some additional rays added: the observer at 8pm no longer sees the sun, because no light rays from the sun hit him... The sun "set" at 6pm because after that time, no light rays reached the earth any more. The light rays have been pulled upwards away above the observer. Have I misunderstood something?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 08, 2018, 06:25:43 AM
So when does sun set occur then?
When the Sun appears to dip below the horizon.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 08, 2018, 11:06:34 AM
So when does sun set occur then?
When the Sun appears to dip below the horizon.

And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 08, 2018, 11:20:28 AM
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 08, 2018, 11:39:57 AM
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.

Are we still debating EA theory here? Are you debating on the side of supporting EA theory? Can you draw a picture or describe what you mean in more detail?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 08, 2018, 02:57:32 PM
Are we still debating EA theory here? Are you debating on the side of supporting EA theory?
I'm not necessarily supporting anything, merely clarifying.

Can you draw a picture or describe what you mean in more detail?
Not immediately, but I can give it a shot when I have some time
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 08, 2018, 03:47:14 PM
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)

But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

Unless, at those angles where that would happen is where the spotlight effect takes over.

Edit:

4 hot air balloons: A, B, C, and D

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/292tht5.jpg)

Which one(s) would see the sun in this graphic and, if seeing it, where would they perceive it to be?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2018, 01:20:24 AM
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)

But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

Unless, at those angles where that would happen is where the spotlight effect takes over.

Edit:

4 hot air balloons: A, B, C, and D

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/292tht5.jpg)

Which one(s) would see the sun in this graphic and, if seeing it, where would they perceive it to be?
It may help a bit if you don't look on the lines on the Electromagnetic Accelerator diagram as rays leaving the sun but from the other direction as the direction an observer would perceive the sun.
So, for your balloons, the directions have not yet been defined, but would, presumably,  match "reality".

From directly below the sun it appears directly overhead but from other locations the sun is not seen as being in its geometric location but lower.
Every point on the sun can still radiate light in all directions.

At least one flat earth video uses a bi-concave lens to achieve a somewhat similar effect, this one, I think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnSr4fuRQrs
Flat Earth Dr Zack's Angles of Deception, Fudmottin
The big problems with Fudmottin's lens are that it is effective only for a limited range and only if the sun does not move.
So little seems defined for the Electromagnetic Accelerator that there is no way to know if would be effective were the sun to move.
It's fair to say that, at this stage, it's only a hypothesis and not fully developed.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 10, 2018, 01:42:56 AM
One thing I notice is being misinterpreted is scale. The image in the OP is at least 12,450 miles across (half the earth's circumference in RET)

Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles in altitude. That is a tiny bump.

International flights cruise at 5.6 miles in altitude. Another bump.

Hot air balloons only get to about 0.5 miles. An even smaller bump on the vast earth.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 10, 2018, 01:52:59 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)

But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

What are you trying to say? There are very clearly no rays of light in that diagram which reach the observer. This is exactly the EA explanation for sunset.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 10, 2018, 05:14:34 AM
What are you trying to say? There are very clearly no rays of light in that diagram which reach the observer. This is exactly the EA explanation for sunset.
SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 10, 2018, 02:02:51 PM
It may help a bit if you don't look on the lines on the Electromagnetic Accelerator diagram as rays leaving the sun but from the other direction as the direction an observer would perceive the sun.
So, for your balloons, the directions have not yet been defined, but would, presumably,  match "reality".

From directly below the sun it appears directly overhead but from other locations the sun is not seen as being in its geometric location but lower.
Every point on the sun can still radiate light in all directions.

Is that what is meant by the diagram?

Because if those lines depict the only direction from which sunlight is perceived by a viewer, then the earth does become an “obstruction,” with a “shadow zone” occurring at the point where a line is tangent to earth.

I need to think this through and understand what such a sun would look like to a viewer. I don’t think it would be the same as sunset/rise caused by a rotating, spherical earth with no EA phenomena.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 10, 2018, 07:33:57 PM
How about this?

Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ppnbix.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 10, 2018, 10:28:55 PM
SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?

Can you please try to form meaningful sentences? It's hard to guess at what meaning your word soup might have been intended to convey.

There are only two rays in that diagram to which the Earth's surface is a tangent, and those are the sunrise and sunset points. It doesn't make any sense to describe these light rays as tangent to the Earth, because the rays are curved and the Earth is not. A tangent to a straight line is just that straight line itself.

Nearer to the Sun, the rays strike the Earth at an oblique angle, until you get directly under the Sun and the rays are perpendicular to the Earth.

Farther from the Sun than the sunrise/sunset point, there is no path a light ray can take to get from the Sun to the Earth's surface except by going through the Earth itself. Since the Earth is opaque, these paths cannot be taken.

All of the diagrams thus far posted illustrate this idea, even if the specific curvature depicted is inaccurate. I do not understand why it needs to be made so complicated.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 12:24:29 AM
Can you please try to form meaningful sentences? It's hard to guess at what meaning your word soup might have been intended to convey.
Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?

There are only two rays in that diagram to which the Earth's surface is a tangent, and those are the sunrise and sunset points.

Tangent means the ray isn't obstructed. Tangent means the ray continues on and continues to curve. Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?

It doesn't make any sense to describe these light rays as tangent to the Earth, because the rays are curved and the Earth is not. A tangent to a straight line is just that straight line itself.

Okay. So it's the flat earth that's tangent to those two rays, which are then not obstructed, by definition of what it means to be tangent.

Nearer to the Sun, the rays strike the Earth at an oblique angle, until you get directly under the Sun and the rays are perpendicular to the Earth. Farther from the Sun than the sunrise/sunset point, there is no path a light ray can take to get from the Sun to the Earth's surface except by going through the Earth itself. Since the Earth is opaque, these paths cannot be taken.

But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.

All of the diagrams thus far posted illustrate this idea, even if the specific curvature depicted is inaccurate. I do not understand why it needs to be made so complicated.

Because it's a weird concept. Does my diagram illustrate the concept too? (It's one of the "all" but maybe you meant all, excluding mine?
 Are there more rays than that last ones that are tangent to the earth, marking as you say sunrise and sunset?
Are the more that are not tangent, that don't reach the earth's surface but keep curving upward?

Like in my diagram?

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ppnbix.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 11, 2018, 11:41:20 AM
How about this?

Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2ppnbix.jpg)

I think the spotlight effect is an unnecessary complication. One should just focus on the light, that is bound upwards. And quite naturally they exists in this scenario. In the OP the earth's surface is a tangent for the rays at 6 am/pm. Any light ray emitted under a larger angle will have its lowest point above the earths surface.

Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below. And there we have the big problem. The EA model explains the apparent position of the sun by a linear extrapolation of the path of the light rays under the angle they approach your eye. The further away you're from the sun, the flatter is the angle the light rays approach your eye and therefor the apparent position of the sun in the sky is lower.

So if the rays approach the eye from below, also the sun will appear to be below you. So either it will appear as shining from inside the earth or it appears to be between the earth's surface and the observer.   

It is also a bit hard to imagine how a observer at the 6am/pm would see the sun. If the angle is 0° then the sun would be just at the horizon. In the next moment the sun is a bit further away. So the light is now bending upwards, but it is still visible. So the sun would appear to sink, but not vanish. But at some point, all the light would go over my head. So I guess, it would appear like the sun is fading away.   

I'm also wondering, if only celestial light from the sun, moon, stars, etc is affected by the EA. Otherwise light from points far away but below me, the objects at that points should sink more and more the further the point is away. E.g. the horizon should sink more an more below eye level the further it is and the higher I am...
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 11:44:41 AM
One should just focus on the light, that is bound upwards.
Why would we focus on the light that nobody can see?

Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.
No, this is quite simply not the case.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 11, 2018, 12:43:18 PM
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?

Light going up is a consequence of the continuous upward acceleration. 
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 01:08:00 PM
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?
Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.
No, this is quite simply not the case.
Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 02:02:40 PM
If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"
The ones that end up producing the image of the Sun on your optical device of choice's retina.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 02:12:21 PM
If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"
The ones that end up producing the image of the Sun on your optical device of choice's retina.
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.

I've removed the confusing (for me) rays. This depicts the cross section of day and night, ignoring twilight distinctions.  At about 6AM, the earth is obstructing the light from the sun, which is curving due to EA.  Earllier than 6AM it is still night and the sun is still hidden by the obstructing earth. But someone on a high mountain in the 4AM time zone is seeing a sunrise. Where does that sunrise appear to be? The edge of that light envelope is composed of "rays" curving upward. Where are there more numerous and luminous rays reaching that observer's retinas coming from?

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/fmhxqo.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 11, 2018, 02:13:37 PM
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?
Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.

So light rays have different intensities depending on the angle under which they are emitted from the sun? Or does it mean the angular dependence of the light emitted from the sun is not homogeneous?

So there is more light emitted in the 1pm direction compared to the 4 pm direction? But even then it is difficult to understand. At 5.30pm and even at 5.55 pm the sun is still quite bright. But 10 minutes later, the intensity drops suddenly down, so that it is basically invisible?

Anyway, even if there are less numerous and luminous light beams under that angle, either there is light, or this no light. And if there is light, I can detect it...
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 03:16:03 PM
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.
Oh. I see. You're asking about the little bit of light you'll see shortly after a sunset, or immediately before sunrise.

Of course, it would take a pretty tall mountain for you to be able to see sunrise 2 hours in advance (you're looking at about 180km!), but I'll humour you and your little space elevator. The answer is: yes, you will see this fairly frequently. Nearly every day, dare I say. The Sun will indeed appear to be hiding behind the Earth, and the light will be coming from somewhere down-ish.

So light rays have different intensities depending on the angle under which they are emitted from the sun? Or does it mean the angular dependence of the light emitted from the sun is not homogeneous?
No. As I'm sure you remember, I've asked you bear in mind that we're not dealing with lasers here. Light disperses.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 11, 2018, 03:34:47 PM
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.
Oh. I see. You're asking about the little bit of light you'll see shortly after a sunset, or immediately before sunrise.

Of course, it would take a pretty tall mountain for you to be able to see sunrise 2 hours in advance (you're looking at about 180km!), but I'll humour you and your little space elevator. The answer is: yes, you will see this fairly frequently. Nearly every day, dare I say. The Sun will indeed appear to be hiding behind the Earth, and the light will be coming from somewhere down-ish.

So light rays have different intensities depending on the angle under which they are emitted from the sun? Or does it mean the angular dependence of the light emitted from the sun is not homogeneous?
No. As I'm sure you remember, I've asked you bear in mind that we're not dealing with lasers here. Light disperses.

The question is, if the angular dependence of the light flux emitted from the sun is homogeneous or not. If it is homogeneous, it would mean that the same amount of light is emitted in each direction. So the amount of light reaching your eye at 1pm is the same as at 4pm, 5pm, 6pm and also 5 minutes after 6pm.

No one is talking about 2 hours before sunrise, but what about 5 minutes or 10 minutes before sunrise? Even 1 second before sunrise the light would reach the eye from below, if sunrise defines the point where the earth's surface is tangential to the bound light ray.

And this upward pointing light rays are coming directly from the sun, its not about the diffuse scattered light that illuminates the sky and earth after sunset/before sunrise. If you take the illustration in the OP somehow serious, you're directly looking at the sun if you point your eye in the direction of the bended light rays, so you would also look directly into the sun if the rays are pointing upwards. And because the light at every point of the sun is emitted in any direction you will always see the unobstructed full sun.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 03:37:14 PM
I'm sorry, but none of this actually applies. You continue trying to insert your own bits into the theory, but I won't entertain them.

In instances where you actually get high enough to see the sun below eye level, the horizon would also be below eye level. There is no contradiction here. Bobby's 180km example is just taking this to an extreme conclusion, and I can see why he'd do that.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 05:23:50 PM
If I wasn't confused before, I surely am now. What rays are "actually relevant?"
The ones that end up producing the image of the Sun on your optical device of choice's retina.
Those are the ones that are curving upward, I thought.
Oh. I see. You're asking about the little bit of light you'll see shortly after a sunset, or immediately before sunrise.
I'm asking about your relevant rays that are more luminous and numerous. Are those the little bit of light seen shortly after a sunset or immediately before sunrise? Whatever that is? I've seen thousands of sunsets and never seen any little bit of sun after sunset. Hence, it wouldn't be sunset.

I can talk about round earth and distant sun in which a visual sunset isn't coincident with astronomical sunset due to refraction, so that when you see the sun at the horizon, it's actually lower and I'm just seeing the sun higher because it's light is bending around the curve of the earth.

But I simply am not deciphering what you're talking about on a flat earth with sunlight that's bending in the opposite direction, away from earth. I understand how that works with atmospheric temperature inversions where refraction will work to bend light away from the surface of earth, but that causes inferior mirages. You can see that with a setting sun in which a "mirror" of the sun's lower limb will appear to rise from a false horizon and join with the setting sun. I've seen sunsets in which bent light distorts the appearance of the sun. (example (http://oi64.tinypic.com/ilwodw.jpg))

But I've never seen any little bit of light of the sun that appears after sunset. (Reflected/scattered light of twilight, of course, or illuminating clouds...but the rays of the sun? They're gone at the moment of sunset.)



Of course, it would take a pretty tall mountain for you to be able to see sunrise 2 hours in advance (you're looking at about 180km!), but I'll humour you and your little space elevator.
Thank you, Pete. That's very kind of you to humor me in using a cartoon diagram that isn't to scale and that I never meant to suggest was a practical depiction of real world details. But I'm just trying to apprehend this EA concept and how it is so obvious to you but my dense brain isn't getting it. Appreciate your patience.

The answer is: yes, you will see this fairly frequently. Nearly every day, dare I say. The Sun will indeed appear to be hiding behind the Earth, and the light will be coming from somewhere down-ish.
You lost me again. The sun appears to be hiding? Can the sun be seen or not? We're not talking about sunlight illuminating other things. We're talking about the sun itself. Can we see it or can't we? That's what sunset is. The earth is obstructing our view of the sun. Is it because the earth is curved and its rotation is putting the sun behind the curve? Or is the earth flat and upward bending light gets obstructed at the point where it is tangent to the earth's surface?

Light "coming from somewhere down-ish." Huh? No. You're not getting it. I'm not talking about the sun after sunset and, oh, hey, it's still light in the sky that appears to be coming from over the horizon. No. I'm talking about seeing the sun still, even after it's supposedly "hiding." If light "rays" from the sun are bending upwards, and I'm able to get my retina in the path of those rays that were, say, tangent, but not obstructed, then I'm going to see the sun itself NOT appearing to be hiding. I will see the sun, or some upper portion of it at least, and it will not only be "down-ish," but below the horizon. It will appear in front of the earth's surface.

Here's a real world example, that doesn't require hyperbole of "space elevators" or 2 hour time differences.

I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.

Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 06:07:27 PM
I'm asking about your relevant rays that are more luminous and numerous.
That comment was based on a misunderstanding of your position. That's why I moved on from it.

But I've never seen any little bit of light of the sun that appears after sunset. (Reflected/scattered light of twilight, of course, or illuminating clouds...but the rays of the sun? They're gone at the moment of sunset.)
So you haven't, but you also have. Fascinating.

Thank you, Pete. That's very kind of you to humor me in using a cartoon diagram that isn't to scale and that I never meant to suggest was a practical depiction of real world details. But I'm just trying to apprehend this EA concept and how it is so obvious to you but my dense brain isn't getting it. Appreciate your patience.
Well, the problem is that you can either take it to your 180km extreme, or admit that you're worrying yourself with things like "sometimes the horizon appears 1 degree below eye level". One of these things is comically irrelevant, and the other is entirely unsurprising. A true Catch-22.

The sun appears to be hiding? Can the sun be seen or not?
In the particular scenario you posited, the Sun would appear to be partially hidden behind the Earth. Neither answer you've suggested is correct.

Light "coming from somewhere down-ish." Huh? No. You're not getting it. I'm not talking about the sun after sunset
You're talking about the Sun after sunset when observed from space. Of course it will appear to be somewhere roughly down from you. You're hundreds of kilometres away from the Earth.

No. I'm talking about seeing the sun still, even after it's supposedly "hiding."
That, quite simply, is not a consequence of EAT.

I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.

Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?
Not quite, but it's the least wrong thing you've said so far. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're about to try and interpret the perceivable "bottom" of the Sun as its "top", but let's see where you take it.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 06:50:35 PM
I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.

Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?
Not quite, but it's the least wrong thing you've said so far. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're about to try and interpret the perceivable "bottom" of the Sun as its "top", but let's see where you take it.
I can't take it anywhere until you provide the right answer, and not affirm that my proposed answer is the "least wrong thing."

Explain how that happens and how, if not fully quite then at least partially quite, EA is a factor.

Then you can see where I'm taking this.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 11, 2018, 07:57:29 PM
I'm sorry, the concept has been explained many times, and I just don't have all that much to add. You're trying to get me to concede on a misrepresentation so you can build yourself a little strawman to fight. I will not assist you in this.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 08:02:19 PM
Stop acting like everything's a trap. Link to where it's been explained if you can't be bothered to explain it yourself.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 11, 2018, 10:19:09 PM
Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?

If that would help you to convey your point, then go right ahead. I would also be satisfied with you writing coherent English.

Tangent means the ray isn't obstructed. Tangent means the ray continues on and continues to curve.

That isn't what "tangent" means, and that doesn't follow from what "tangent" means in the case where a flat approximation of the Earth doesn't account for hills, trees, buildings and other obstacles.

Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?

In theory, no. In practice, yes, because something parallel and very close to the Earth's surface is almost always going to hit some sort of structure or object. None of this makes very much difference, however.

Okay. So it's the flat earth that's tangent to those two rays, which are then not obstructed, by definition of what it means to be tangent.

That's not correct, but I'll address your later points anyway since this isn't relevant.

But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.

Correct. The same prediction is made by RET. You can even observe this yourself, if you'd care to take an aeroplane ride around sunset.

Because it's a weird concept. Does my diagram illustrate the concept too? (It's one of the "all" but maybe you meant all, excluding mine?

I did mean to include yours. The specific curvature in yours is wrong (I have no idea why you have solar rays arbitrarily meeting again at some point over the night zone), but it is accurate as it pertains to EA's model of sunrise and sunset.

Are there more rays than that last ones that are tangent to the earth, marking as you say sunrise and sunset?

I don't understand the question. There are of course more such rays arranged in a roughly circular formation because the Earth is three-dimensional, but within the plane of this diagram, there are no more than the ones you have drawn.

Are the more that are not tangent, that don't reach the earth's surface but keep curving upward?

Well, any light rays emitted in an upwards direction from the Sun will obviously never reach the Earth. Some emitted downwards will also curve away before they ever reach the Earth.

Like in my diagram?

Yes.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 10:24:23 PM
Here's a real world example, that doesn't require hyperbole of "space elevators" or 2 hour time differences.

I can watch a sunset on the beach at Del Mar, CA.
At 7:58pm, I see the "green flash" and the sun is gone. There's no little bit of it still there. It's gone.
At that same time, 1000 feet up and 1 mile to the east, occupants of a hot air balloon are still seeing the sun. For them they see the sun disappear at 8:00pm. Not only that, but the pilot give the guests a 2nd viewing of sunset by climbing another 1000', bringing the sun back into view so that they can see it slip away again.

Is that the effect of the upward curving light of EA over a flat earth? The upward curving rays from the sun were obstructed by the flat earth, but rise in elevation puts you back in the path of the curving rays so you see the sun again, unobstructed. Yes?

From early in this topic:

There are also rays which miss the earth and make a u-turn back into space. The illustration in my first post only shows those rays which hit the earth. There will also be rays which miss the earth slightly. This is what causes clouds to appear to be lit from below after the sun is below the horizon in some photographs. This is also what causes the tops of mountains and skyscrapers to be illuminated, while the base is in shadow.

Per twilight after the sun sets, that is caused by light reflecting off of the atmosphere.

All of these phenomenons are explainable under this theory, and trivially so.

Like this:
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2ajp98x.jpg)


Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 10:31:03 PM

But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.

Correct. The same prediction is made by RET. You can even observe this yourself, if you'd care to take an aeroplane ride around sunset.

Done. Never seen this phenomenon happen.

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2vkn9ub.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 11, 2018, 11:04:59 PM
Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?

If that would help you to convey your point, then go right ahead. I would also be satisfied with you writing coherent English.
I shall, then, because neither of us is comprehending the other.

(http://oi64.tinypic.com/nvbk28.jpg)

Sun ray labeled #2 reaches the surface of the earth at some angle of elevation greater than 0° and is obstructed.

Sun ray labeled #1 never reaches the surface of the earth and is never obstructed by anything, not buildings, not trees, not mountains before it continues it's upward curve.

There are many (infinite) rays between #1 and #2. Somewhere between #2 and #1 is the last ray that can emanate unimpeded by the earth's surface or any obstacles there upon.

Is that coherent enough for you?

Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Never happens. At altitude, whether 2000 feet in a hot air balloon, or 30,000 feet from a jet aircraft, the sun never appears below the horizon* and is always eclipsed by the earth during sunset. There's no such point as that to which the red arrow points on ray #1

*Note: mirage phenomenon caused by atmospheric conditions and not EA can create the illusion of a portion of a distorted "mirror" sun below the astronomical horizon.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 12, 2018, 02:00:10 AM
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?
That's what Pete was saying too but I don't agree... in EA, sunset is not occuring when light is obstructed by the earth, sunset is occuring when light is curved upwards away from the observer. There are many rays that do travel downwards and hit the earth, just like any observer at any time of the day will see those light rays bending down to them. We know the earth obstructs that light, because things on the earth are illuminated. But at sunset, those rays of light, according to EA, are curving so much as to be tangential to the surface, so the sun appears in the distance "level" with the horizon, and then after that time, because the light is now curving upwards away from the observer, then the sun is no longer visible. So it's not invisible because the light rays are being obstructed, it's invisible because the light rays are not reaching the observer.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Quote from: hexagon
Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.
No, this is quite simply not the case.
How is this not the case? Can you please draw a diagram?
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Quote from: hexagon
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?
Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
So the relevant light rays, as you mentioned else where in the post, are the ones that actually strike your image plane e.g. your retina right? So a rough explanation of how a lens works: it "ignores" all other incedental light rays, and only the light rays hitting the lens from a limited number of angles will end up passing through and being focused on your retina.

So because we know that your eye (or camera) is selective of the light rays that it actually "sees", then we can be selective in the light rays we draw right? The light rays that people are drawing, travelling downwards and then upwards towards an observer, should be entirely relevant: we know that a light ray we draw in the direction the observer is looking, is going to be seen. And light rays at an angle can also be seen: we know our field of view is around 60 degrees yeah? Any light rays entering from within that field of view, and travelling in certain directions that the lens will "bend" and focus to a single point, will be seen.

Having said that I take Tom's point, and have mentioned that previously: the scales involved are huge, so our not-to-scale drawings can not really "prove" how much of the sun should be visible below the earth and at what distances/angles etc. I'm thinking without a mathematical formula for the curving then this would be impossible, but perhaps we have sufficient information to provide a "rough" idea within certain constraints?

For me though, I think it's more important that we all agree at least on what seems to be the central tenant of EA: "sunset occurs when light no longer reaches the observer, because it has been pulled upwards away from them"

Regardless of whether or not that effect would actually be seen, then it will to my mind also require the sun to "disapear" from the top down. The top is higher than the bottom (!), so the light rays from the top will curve upwards away from the viewer before the bottom light rays. Trying to bring an argument of "oh well there's heaps of different angles of light rays" is irrelevant: we KNOW that only certain rays will be focused by our eye, and we know that focus mechanism is the same for the top of the sun as the bottom of the sun, so all things being equal, the top would disappear first, the bottom would never "reach" the horizon (aside from any light curving back upwards to the observer). The sun would never appear "half set" over the horizon: if the bottom rays arn't visible, the top rays would not be visible either.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 03:28:19 AM
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?
That's what Pete was saying too but I don't agree... in EA, sunset is not occuring when light is obstructed by the earth, sunset is occuring when light is curved upwards away from the observer...

Really? I didn't pick up on that. Though they aren't in lockstep, I understood from all three (Tom, Pete & Parsifal) that it's the occlusion of the sun by the earth as the reason for the sun's appearance at sunrise and at sunset. It's not simply an artifact of curving light rays. The only reason for the curving light rays not reaching the observer is the obstruction of the earth along the path of the light. Without the earth surface (or its irregularities, natural and man-made) getting in the way, there would be no sunset; least not the type we see.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 12, 2018, 05:53:59 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Hf8IdCo.png)

So at every point up until sunset, the observer can see the sun because the rays are coming down and hitting their eye (and being curved along the way). It makes sense that the final point at which this happens, just before sunset, is when the light rays are bending at their maximum amount so as they still actually hit the observer, but they're so curved that the sun appears on the horizon. Once the observer/sun is past that distance, there are not any light rays reaching the observer. I mean sure, I guess technically you could say "the light rays infront of the observer are being obstructed by the earth" but that's not the reason the sun "disappears" at sun set, that just explains why you could travel closer to the sun and see the sun "reappear" (just like  you can on RE). On RE of course, the straight rays from the sun are blocked by the earth. In EA, the curved rays from the sun never reach the observer: the only rays that reach that distance will be above the observer.

In other words, just because the suns rays are hitting the ground "somewhere else in the world", we wouldn't really consider that as the reason for the disappearance of the sun. That's like saying, Mike has five apples: he gives two to Dave, and gives you none. The reason you don't have any apples is not because he gave some to Dave, it's because Mike didn't give you any damn apples :P
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 06:54:51 AM
I don't understand that.

What would make sense to me is:

(http://oi63.tinypic.com/2cylfgl.jpg)

Just for illustrative purposes, your observer here at, say 5pm would be perceiving the sun to be about 20 degrees above the horizon.
Around 6:15, this observer now sees the sun at almost 0 degrees and this is where he watches "sunset."
By 6:30, the sun is no longer visible because the rays that would be arriving at his vantage point from below 0 degrees are being obstructed by the earth.
So where you drew the observer, it would be approximately 9pm and that part of the world would be in shadow. None of the curving rays of the sun can reach that point on the earth's surface, so the sun is not visible. It "set" below horizontal 2-3 hours previously.

If you took away the earth completely and left the observer suspended in the same space relative to the sun, the sun (I imagine) would appear to be at some angle below horizontal because those rays that had previously been blocked by the sun would no longer be blocked. There would have been no sunset without the opaque earth.

That's how I understand how EAT would work. You've got to have an eclipsing object. The curving light from the sun doesn't, by itself, explain why the sun appears to "set." It only would explain why the elevation above the horizontal changes throughout the day. But the earth is needed to get in the way at the horizontal for there to be a transition of the sun from visible to not visible, or vice versa.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 07:19:11 AM
On a curved earth with straight sun rays, you can elevate out of the shadow of the earth's obstruction and see the sun again, until it sets again.
On a flat earth, with curved sun rays, you can do the same thing, like your observer here:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/11l30ua.jpg)

On a curved earth, gaining elevation only brings the sun back into view above the horizon. On a flat earth, where EA is responsible for the elevation of the sun, the curved rays are now on an upward slope, which means the sun would appear below the horizon to the observer, like a mirage.

I've never seen that happen. I've experienced dual or triple sunsets in hot air balloons and aircraft, and I can replicate it with a drone. (If I had a "space elevator" I could use that too.)

But except for the light bending of atmospheric temperature inversions or ducting, I've never seen light from the sun curving upward so that it appears that the sun is below the horizon, as if the sun was shining through the solid earth or nearer to me than the earth.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 12, 2018, 07:50:36 AM
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 08:07:05 AM
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?

Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 08:25:54 AM
Is this "law" about light bending upwards in some way related to UA?
Because "up" only has meaning relative to your own orientation, on a globe earth "up" in Australia is opposite to "up" in the UK.
Is there any actual evidence for this effect, has it been shown experimentally?
Or is this just rationalisation to make things like sunset work on a flat earth?
(If so then I have to admit it's a much better explanation than "perspective")
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 08:29:10 AM
Bobby, are you somehow assuming that your vision would be "objectively straight", and that it wouldn't reflect the curvature of the light? You've completely lost me - you keep talking about things that you think should be happening, but there's no connection between what you're saying and EAT.

Because "up" only has meaning relative to your own orientation, on a globe earth "up" in Australia is opposite to "up" in the UK.
Right, but the Earth is flat, and "up" is largely universal.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 08:45:19 AM
Bobby, are you somehow assuming that your vision would be "objectively straight"...
I don't know what that means. Yes? I'm assuming if a curved ray intercepts our retina, we perceive the origin of that ray as being straight out from our retina.

I'm talking about something like this:

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/10gxkoz.jpg)

The blue dot is an observer and the red dot is an object being observed. The curved red solid line is a light ray travelling from the red dot to the blue one; the dotted red line and the blurred red dot indicate where the red dot would appear to be to the observer.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 09:02:57 AM
That explains a lot, although I have no idea how to explain why that's wrong, other than: You can't take a scenario in which all light curves and assume that you would still perceive it as if all light travelled in straight lines.

It is also important to note that you're still extremely exaggerating the scale of the effect you're proposing. If you adjusted for scale, you'd struggle to come up with anything remotely noticeable to the human eye.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 09:12:27 AM
I'm confused by that post, the two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
Obviously the scale is exaggerated but the diagram is basically correct isn't it? The photon may bend but the angle it hits your eye determines where it hits your retina and you see the object as though was coming from that direction, no? That's why you can see round corners with mirrors, it looks like the object is straight in front of you when in fact it is round the corner. Your eye can't tell the path the light has travelled to get to you.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 09:20:54 AM
Obviously the scale is exaggerated but the diagram is basically correct isn't it?
No.

the two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
Eh. The two paragraphs address two different ways in which Bobby is wrong - one attacks his assumptions, the other his lack of internal consistency. The second paragraph is perhaps unnecessary, but you know I like to be thorough.

Your eye can't tell the path the light has travelled to get to you.
Indeed, but your interpretation of the world is centered entirely around everything else you can see - our perception of what is "straight" will necessary follow the curvature of the light. The projected light does not stop curving after it's reflected, which is why your reflection in the mirror does not appear to be (marginally) lower down than you are. In Bobby's outer-space diagram, the cosmonaut in question will see the Sun as located next to the Earth.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 09:23:54 AM
Are you able to fix the diagram? I'm not clear what you think is wrong with it.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 09:25:36 AM
Are you able to fix the diagram?
The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 09:40:30 AM
What? But how can it? The light has bent and because of that it hits your eye at a different angle and hits the retina in a different place.
That is how you work out where things are.
I thought this was an explanation for sunset and actually works quite well, if the sun is above the flat earth but the light is bent enough that it is coming at your horizontally then you'll see the sun at the horizon.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 09:46:33 AM
What? But how can it? The light has bent and because of that it hits your eye at a different angle and hits the retina in a different place.
Assuming that by "different angle" and "different place" you mean compared to a straight light model, sure. But the model remains internally consistent.

That is how you work out where things are.
Your point?

I thought this was an explanation for sunset and actually works quite well, if the sun is above the flat earth but the light is bent enough that it is coming at your horizontally then you'll see the sun at the horizon.
Not quite. The horizon will simply appear to curve slightly, and the Sun will eventually dip behind it.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 09:56:33 AM
That is how you work out where things are.
Your point?
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 09:57:55 AM
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.
But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 10:01:42 AM
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.
But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?

If the light is bent such that it comes at me in an upward direction then I see it below me.
Consider the sun reflected in a puddle of water. The sun looks like it's below me, in the puddle.
Obviously I know in real life it isn't below me but because the reflected light comes from that direction that is where it appears.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 10:04:11 AM
If the light is bent such that it comes at me in an upward direction then I see it below me.
Yes. In Bobby's extreme outer space scenario, the Sun will appear either next to or behind the Earth, and largely downwards from you.

Consider the sun reflected in a puddle of water. The sun looks like it's below me, in the puddle.
This is precisely because the inexplicable straightening you just proposed does not occur. If your proposed change were implemented, you'd see the Sun in some completely unpredictable location.

As Parsifal already pointed out, all reflected light would accelerate just the same.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 10:19:00 AM
Right. So is your objection to the diagram the amount of bending?
So the light does bend and the sun's apparent position isn't its real position, but it isn't as pronounced as in that diagram, yes?
Maybe when you have time you can show a diagram explaining the reality in your model.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 12, 2018, 10:27:38 AM
Are you able to fix the diagram?
The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.

That's interesting... How would you transfer this to the picture in in the OP? Where would be the apparent position of the sun for an observer at every point in time marked in the diagram?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 12, 2018, 10:30:30 AM
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?

This is a vague question, but since we were talking about its position relative to the horizon, I'll assume that's what you mean. The Sun appears to be above the horizon.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 12, 2018, 10:40:00 AM
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?

This is a vague question, but since we were talking about its position relative to the horizon, I'll assume that's what you mean. The Sun appears to be above the horizon.

Does this mean, the apparent position is the same compared to the case the light reaches the eye under same the same absolute angle, but from above instead of from below?

Still I have the impression it needs a bit of clarification where the apparent position of the sun would be for all the light rays shown in the OP sketch.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 02:08:52 PM
Are you able to fix the diagram?
The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.

The entire point of this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

...is to provide a flat earth explanation for why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 02:14:16 PM
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?

This is a vague question, but since we were talking about its position relative to the horizon, I'll assume that's what you mean. The Sun appears to be above the horizon.
How can that be?
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/10gxkoz.jpg)

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2vkn9ub.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 02:35:59 PM
The entire point of this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

...is to provide a flat earth explanation for why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is.
No.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 02:44:21 PM
The entire point of this diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

...is to provide a flat earth explanation for why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is.
No.
High content post there. Care to elaborate? Parsifal? Is Pete right? Maybe your "no" is in response to my use of the phrase "entire point" because there are other useful points to be drawn from the diagram in addition to showing why the sun doesn't appear to be exactly where it is?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 02:45:44 PM
Pete and the Wiki are consistently and annoyingly vague about what the point of this theory is

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

There seems to be no empirical evidence that this effect even exists.

If it's to explain sunset then it works a whole lot better than perspective. If it isn't then what evidence do you have for it and what phenomena does it explain?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 12, 2018, 02:54:35 PM
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

Somehow it seems that the "no" is a bit of a contradiction to the OP...

Regarding empirical evidence: There is no evidence that light is bended upwards. It's pure speculation and in contradiction of everything we know about light.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 03:10:43 PM
It is described as a "proposal" in the Wiki. The equation is given with no real explanation as to how it was derived, how it has been tested and what evidence exists for this effect even existing.
As an explanation for sunset it kinda works, the sun is really 3,000 miles above the earth but its light is bent so we see it coming at us horizontally and eventually shoots over our heads so it's dark. Works quite well to explain clouds lit from below and noctilucent clouds too.

Only problem is I've seen no evidence presented that it actually exists as an effect.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 12, 2018, 03:47:37 PM
Only problem is I've seen no evidence presented that it actually exists as an effect.

There can't be an evidence, because it does not exist... Look at the sketch and add some real numbers to it. It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 03:52:16 PM
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.
That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 12, 2018, 04:44:51 PM
How can that be?

I have already explained that, to which you responded by claiming that you weren't making the misinterpretation that you are now making again. I doubt I would be any more successful the second time.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
How can that be?

I have already explained that, to which you responded by claiming that you weren't making the misinterpretation that you are now making again. I doubt I would be any more successful the second time.

You're probably right.

How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 12, 2018, 05:23:05 PM
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.
That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.

That’s a bit of a silly comparison.
Nothing is making the light shoot anywhere in the round earth model. The light goes in straight lines and the earth is curved so over distance yes, a light which starts parallel ground will “rise”, but it’s not the light that is rising, it’s the ground that is curving away. Hence the result in the boat and laser experiment. But this is all well understood and that experiment is verification of it.
There is no law of physics that says that ALL light is deflected upwards by some force. This is just a FE attempt to fudge things to explain observations. And it’s fair enough to make a hypothesis which explains observations but you have to follow that up with experiments. What experiments have been done which show this is a real effect?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 05:27:14 PM
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.
That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.

That’s a bit of a silly comparison.
Nothing is making the light shoot anywhere in the round earth model. The light goes in straight lines and the earth is curved so over distance yes, a light which starts parallel ground will “rise”, but it’s not the light that is rising, it’s the ground that is curving away. Hence the result in the boat and laser experiment. But this is all well understood and that experiment is verification of it.
There is no law of physics that says that ALL light is deflected upwards by some force. This is just a FE attempt to fudge things to explain observations. And it’s fair enough to make a hypothesis which explains observations but you have to follow that up with experiments. What experiments have been done which show this is a real effect?
I think this is the comparison/equivalency Pete was trying to make:

(http://oi68.tinypic.com/2s8odnb.jpg)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 12, 2018, 06:30:56 PM
How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)

Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 06:42:50 PM
How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)

Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.
So sorry. Not sinking in.

Isn't the green line the horizon? Isn't the light ray's correspondence to the horizon the dotted line of apparent sun location relative to said horizon?  In the upper diagram, the sun appears above the horizon because the slope of the light ray is still downward. In the lower diagram, the slope of the light ray is upward, which puts the apparent sun location...where? Still above the horizon?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 06:59:20 PM
How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/a1o3f6.jpg)

Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.
So sorry. Not sinking in.

Isn't the green line the horizon? Isn't the light ray's correspondence to the horizon the dotted line of apparent sun location relative to said horizon?  In the upper diagram, the sun appears above the horizon because the slope of the light ray is still downward. In the lower diagram, the slope of the light ray is upward, which puts the apparent sun location...where? Still above the horizon?
Oh, wait. The green line is the flat earth surface. The horizon "always rises to eye level" (or doesn't it?) so the horizon is above the green line and would be a dot, coming out of the page/screen if the blue dot is the observer.

Using the ENaG cross sectional diagram technique for horizon that rises to eye level:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2hd2uj7.jpg)

Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Parsifal on June 12, 2018, 07:01:30 PM
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.

Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 07:12:31 PM
Maybe this will sink in the fifth [sic] time you read it.

Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

I get it. The horizon "dips" down lower than it actually is and does NOT appear at eye-level because...upward curving reflected light.

Mind blown.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 07:19:40 PM
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.

Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

I've been examining EA for 4 days now. Y'all have been looking at it for what? 5 years? 10 years?

Yo, Pete "the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is" Svarrior and Tom "Horizon is always at eye level" Bishop? Is what Parsifal saying sinking in yet?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 12, 2018, 07:45:08 PM
I don't understand why you're trying to mix EAT with the theory it's directly opposing. Would you care to clarify what you're trying to achieve by this?

Also, while it's no secret that I disagree with Tom most of the time, Parsifal and I are saying exactly the same things, just approaching the subject from slightly different perspectives. Your confusion stems from the fact that you fail to adjust for *all* light curving.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 12, 2018, 08:11:34 PM
I don't understand why you're trying to mix EAT with the theory it's directly opposing. Would you care to clarify what you're trying to achieve by this?
Why? I asked you to elaborate on your low-content "no" post and you ignored it.

But okay. I'm not trying to mix anything. I'm trying to integrate what I'm reading and hearing from all of you into something that makes sense. I've spent more time than I am comfortable admitting trying to verify that the horizon is always at eye-level. It's in your wiki. Not one flat earth proponent has stepped forward to say "yeah, I see your point." So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?

But now, I'm not supposed to consider it fundamental to flat earth when considering the plausibility of EA as an explanation for the appearance of the angle of the sun above the horizon?

Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too. (see what I did there?) He's mixing them, so take it up with him. Don't act condescendingly confused if I point out the disparity.

Also, while it's no secret that I disagree with Tom most of the time, Parsifal and I are saying exactly the same things, just approaching the subject from slightly different perspectives. Your confusion stems from the fact that you fail to adjust for *all* light curving.
You are, eh?
When I posted this, which was derivative of one Parsifal posted:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/10gxkoz.jpg)
You, when asked how you would fix it, said "The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is."

That's not even what Parsifal is saying. And when I said this diagram (https://imgur.com/zz3HZqI) was being used to depict why the sun appears not "exactly where it is" but lower and lower on the horizon, you simply said, "no."  I don't even know if you know what you're agreeing with.

You've got both EAT and Horizon at Eye Level on your wiki. If they are contradictory, perhaps it would make sense to clarify that rather than present them as potentially compatible and get pissy when critics interpret it that way.

Now that I understand where Parsifal is coming from, and that he is refuting Tom Bishop, I can "fix" the diagram:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/vnouwk.jpg)
So now, the dotted lines are where we perceive the sun and the horizon, but they aren't really there. The sun is always high on its plane and the horizon doesn't actually dip. They just look the way they do because of curving light.

Yikes.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 13, 2018, 12:12:08 AM
Incidentally, what does flat earth say about the speed of light? Is it 300,000 km/s in a vacuum like mainstream science?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 13, 2018, 06:10:57 AM
So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?
No.

Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too.
Tom is not an EAT proponent.

You are, eh?
Yes. You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 13, 2018, 06:23:35 AM
So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?
No.

Finally. A crack in the "Horizon is Always at Eye Level (https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level)" claim from a flat earther.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 13, 2018, 06:26:09 AM
Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too.
Tom is not an EAT proponent.
Maybe not before, but he's sure putting on a show of support on this and the other neighboring derailed topic.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 13, 2018, 06:28:16 AM
You are, eh?
Yes. You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
No. You've been in contradiction to what Parsifal was saying and you don't even realize it.

(See? I can just gainsay as well as you.)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 13, 2018, 06:34:11 AM
\You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
This was Parsifal's illustration.  Not mine.

(http://oi33.tinypic.com/20szvjc.jpg)

Madness?

Redundant?

Do you not get what he's illustrating here? is he saying the sun appears exactly where it is?  (I've got Tom on the other topic now arguing for "bendy light" showing me "evidence" and YouTube video of a guy saying you can't know for sure where anything is because of it.)
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 13, 2018, 06:40:42 AM
I'll tell you what. I don't care about "bendy light." I know that light bends and can be bent. But some ill-defined dark energy influencing "upward" curving light? I'm not buying it. It's an attempt to grasp onto something that can explain why a flat earth looks convex but isn't really. You want to put stock in it? Fine by me. But integrate it with the rest of your model. Don't be throwing whatever sounds "interesting" or counter-conventional against the wall and hope that something sticks. "Bendy light" contradicts many things that are otherwise laid out as FAQS by this site and its community. If bendy light has credibility then you better reexamine those FAQS and be less certain of them.

Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.

 
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 13, 2018, 07:14:06 AM
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.

It is, but when you have Wiki pages like this...

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Pete, can you not see how that would confuse a stupid person? There's no indication that this is an idea that only some FE proponents believe.
This is like trying to guess the number you're thinking of and being allowed to ask questions like "is it odd" or "is it less than 100" but getting confusing responses and then realising you're all thinking of different numbers.

It's increasingly clear that there is no coherent FE theory, model or society. It's just a bunch of people who all believe that the earth is flat (or maybe don't, really) and all come to their own different ways of explaining away the fact that observations demonstrate a globe.

All that said, EA works fairly well to explain the sun's movement, it makes sense in a way that "perspective" doesn't, at all.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 13, 2018, 07:16:30 AM
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.
Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".

Maybe not before, but he's sure putting on a show of support on this and the other neighboring derailed topic.
I can't help you with that. I'm not Tom, and it doesn't appear that he's involved in this discussion. "B-but Tom said a thing!" is not an argument I'm really interested in.

(See? I can just gainsay as well as you.)
Except you're trying to tell me what I mean by my own words. I'm trying to tell you to stop telling us what we mean by our words. It's not so much "doing something as well as I am" as it is "doing the opposite of what I'm doing". Of course, you have every right to do so, but it won't advance this conversation, nor your understanding of the subject.

This was Parsifal's illustration.  Not mine.
Regardless of whether this is true, or who made the illustration, using it the way you're using it is utter madness. I don't understand your obsession with arguments from authority. "But Tom! But Parsifal!" No. We don't care. Discuss ideas, not individuals.

I'm glad that you eventually managed to produce a diagram that isn't wrong, and that this seems to have correlated with you becoming slightly less confused. That said, you'd have gotten there much sooner if you simply stopped trying to make things up and paid attention to our explanations.

Pete, can you not see how that would confuse a stupid person?
Yes, ample evidence of this has been provided.

There's no indication that this is an idea that only some FE proponents believe.
Do we really have to have another "Yes, the Wiki is a work in progress" conversation? We both know this. No need to turn every thread into a Wiki whinge.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 13, 2018, 07:19:19 AM
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.
That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.

Beside that in both cases there is an increasing distance between the surface and the light beam, both ideas have nothing in common. On a round earth you need no "dark energy" to bend the light or the earth away...

Anyway, it is pretty easy to show that the two cases are indeed not equivalent. Take a 1m resonator with 1cm flat end mirrors and couple a laser beam into the resonator. After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator. In reality it simply does not, because no dark energy is accelerating the light upwards...

You think that is not true? If you ever go on vacation to Europe, I invite you to visit our lab and you can convince yourself how laser light propagates... 
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 13, 2018, 07:27:09 AM
On a round earth you need no "dark energy" to bend the light or the earth away...
Dark Energy bending the light or the Earth? What the hell?

After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.
This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 13, 2018, 07:52:48 AM
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.
Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".

Hmm. This is a strange thing to say. It's like rejecting the concept of truth.
I mean...you and Tom might disagree about whether the horizon rises to eye level but this is something you can test.
You both claim to value the importance of empirical evidence so, if you haven't, why not just do an experiment?
Bobby already has and has definitively shown that the horizon does not rise to eye level.
Once that has been established then it becomes "truth", an axiom on which you can build, no?

The horizon when you're at altitude is either below, at or above eye level. There are no other possibilities.
Sometimes you can't see the horizon but that's nit-picking, on a clear day you can do a measurement to determine which of the above 3 is the case.
You can do the measurement from different altitudes and look at whether the horizon's position changes.
You can repeat this experiment on different (clear) days to determine whether the results change.
Over time you build up a model of horizon height vs altitude and others can do their own experiments to verify that model and build confidence in it.
That model then becomes "the truth" until someone finds some problem with the model.

The truth about this cannot be relative it's an objective, measurable thing.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 13, 2018, 07:55:33 AM
Hmm. This is a strange thing to say. It's like rejecting the concept of truth.
Not quite. It's a functional epistemology, just one that's different from what you might find intuitive. It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.

Once that has been established then it becomes "truth", an axiom on which you can build, no?
No. And that goes for both sides. RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over. There are no axioms here - it's just that one side has the honesty to admit it
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 13, 2018, 08:42:42 AM
It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.
But horizon dip has been empirically tested by Bobby - other experiments have been posted which show the same result.
If Tom rejects them he's free to repeat them himself. The fact he repeatedly refuses to or makes excuses tells me that he's not serious about finding truth and is content to worship at the alter of Rowbotham.

RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over.
Not if they actually tally with observations. I reject Tom's model of perspective and horizon dip because it is demonstrably wrong.
A sun thousands of miles above the earth cannot appear to set by "perspective".
I've said several times that the EA theory does work a lot better in this regard so I haven't rejected it out of hand.

BUT, I don't know of any force that would make light bend upwards so I've asked what evidence there is for that effect even existing. The Wiki page about it is pretty sketchy, there's an equation with no real explanation how it was derived. It contains the "Bishop constant", which is ironic if he rejects EA. I'm just not clear what evidence there is that this is a real effect.
You might claim that sunset IS that evidence but it feels like a fudge to explain RE observations on a flat earth.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 13, 2018, 09:29:52 AM

After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.
This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.

That's a good point, will later go in my lab and rotate our lasers so that they are point upwards instead of horizontal... Still I don't really understand, why they are working fine in the current orientation and why the ceiling of our lab is not illuminated by laser light. I really have to think about it.

Anyway, currently we have an job opening for a position in laser optic experiments. If you're interested, I can send you the link for the application page. Seems we overlooked a lot of things up to know, maybe you can help us...
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 14, 2018, 12:12:53 AM
After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.
This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.

Good point Hex! That would seem to be a pretty simple experiment. Pete I'm not sure if you don't understand what he said or if you're just trying to be difficult. Yes, if the mirrors weren't perfectly parallel the light would escape in the direction of the "larger gap". Yes if he adjusted for the curvature of the earth then the plates wouldn't be parallel... but why would he do that?? If he's testing for a flat earth, then perpendicular plates would be also be perfectly parallel yes? It's also pretty common practise in any scientific experiment to focus on certain elements and remove things that would otherwise affect the experiment... If the mirrors are perfectly parallel, and EA is true, then light should escape through the top. To be fair, to my knowledge, it's impossible to ensure the plates are perfectly parallel, but you would be able to account for that experimentally i.e. even if light was found to escape from them not being perfectly parallel, then you could just "spin" the experiment, and expect to see MORE light escaping e from the top right?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 05:43:32 AM
SiDawg, you miss the point. The two setups are equivalent. They would appear the same, and be measurable to be the same. For hexagon's experiment to work, we'd have to align the mirrors so that they're physically parallel. Or, in RE terms, slightly out of alignment with one another.

The way you'd achieve this setup, as you point out, is by aligning the mirrors to match the expected result - if the laser beam is not escaping, then the mirrors are assumed parallel. This can easily be done regardless of EAT being there or not. And, of course, it uses an assumption to prove itself.

In the future, I'd appreciate if you could follow the rules of this forum and refrain from insulting others. I understood what he said, and if being accurate is "trying to be difficult", welp, get ready for some difficulty. Hexagon's experiment is pointless for the reasons presented.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 14, 2018, 08:26:45 AM
For hexagon's experiment to work, we'd have to align the mirrors so that they're physically parallel. Or, in RE terms, slightly out of alignment with one another.

This is a confusing sentence. There is no FE or RE version of parallel. Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
That's pretty much what parallel means.
BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
That sort of experiment is how you'd test whether there is any such force.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 14, 2018, 11:10:27 AM
After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.
This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.

Good point Hex! That would seem to be a pretty simple experiment. Pete I'm not sure if you don't understand what he said or if you're just trying to be difficult. Yes, if the mirrors weren't perfectly parallel the light would escape in the direction of the "larger gap". Yes if he adjusted for the curvature of the earth then the plates wouldn't be parallel... but why would he do that?? If he's testing for a flat earth, then perpendicular plates would be also be perfectly parallel yes? It's also pretty common practise in any scientific experiment to focus on certain elements and remove things that would otherwise affect the experiment... If the mirrors are perfectly parallel, and EA is true, then light should escape through the top. To be fair, to my knowledge, it's impossible to ensure the plates are perfectly parallel, but you would be able to account for that experimentally i.e. even if light was found to escape from them not being perfectly parallel, then you could just "spin" the experiment, and expect to see MORE light escaping e from the top right?

The point is, that you can just rotate the whole setup in any direction, without realigning the mirrors. If I would have aligned the mirrors in a way to compensate for the upward bending, I would have to realign the mirrors as soon if I change the orientation of the whole setup, because the upward acceleration would set a defined and absolute reference direction.

Maybe you know what a HeNe laser is. It's the most simple laser you can imagine. A glass tube with some HeNe gas mixture and two mirrors at each end. This are quite handy devices, like an over sized laser pointer. You can take them in your hand and point them in any direction and it continuously emits light. The alignment of the resonator simply doesn't care for the orientation, because the light inside the laser-resonator propagates in a straight line between the two end mirrors.   

Or another example. Former colleagues of mine were working with so-called whispering gallery resonators. Basically this are tiny glass discs, where you couple a laser beam in and then it travels endlessly inside the disc around. Now you can argue, they were just fabricated in a way to compensate for the upward acceleration. But again, they would only work in one special orientation. If you would even slightly tilt them, the light would escape. But that simply never happened.   

Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 12:29:42 PM
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.

BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.

Anyway, currently we have an job opening for a position in laser optic experiments. If you're interested, I can send you the link for the application page. Seems we overlooked a lot of things up to know, maybe you can help us...
Thank you for your offer, but I'm quite happy with my current position in academia, and am not looking to respecialise.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 14, 2018, 01:19:42 PM
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.

BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
Do you have some other definition for parallel mirrors beyond "Two mirrors who are equidistant from each other at all points"? Or alternatively "A set of mirrors whereupon any two long edges are equidistant from each other at all points along the edge"? The first assumes two mirrors facing one another, the second assumes mirrors arranged in a circle for some reason and oriented such that, with a mirror in the shape of a rectangle, the short edges point 'down' and 'up' but their orientation is only relevant in regards to other mirrors in the circle. Meaning 'down' and 'up' do not need to refer to the direction of the Earth's surface.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: hexagon on June 14, 2018, 02:34:30 PM
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.

BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
Do you have some other definition for parallel mirrors beyond "Two mirrors who are equidistant from each other at all points"? Or alternatively "A set of mirrors whereupon any two long edges are equidistant from each other at all points along the edge"? The first assumes two mirrors facing one another, the second assumes mirrors arranged in a circle for some reason and oriented such that, with a mirror in the shape of a rectangle, the short edges point 'down' and 'up' but their orientation is only relevant in regards to other mirrors in the circle. Meaning 'down' and 'up' do not need to refer to the direction of the Earth's surface.

As I already explained in the post above. If the EA is true, the mirrors in a resonator that keep the light inside the resonator would not be physically parallel, they would be slightly tilted with respect to each other to compensate for the EA effect.

But if you have aligned this resonator once and you rotate now the whole setup let's say by 90° around it's optical axis, you would have to realign the two mirrors in order keep the light still inside the resonator. But that is not the case if e.g. anyone can observe who takes the above described HeNe laser or any equivalent resonator device.       

But you can also think of other experiments. E.g. diffraction experiments with light or x-rays. If the target is symmetric in the horizontal and vertical direction, the diffraction pattern will have the same symmetry. But if EA is valid, the diffraction angles in the vertical direction will change with distance to the detector, the pattern will become asymmetric. Also something no one has ever observed.

Or take a laser beam with a slightly divergent nicely round TEM_00 mode and let it propagate over a long distance. The parts of the beam with different vertical divergence angles will be slightly differently affected by EA, but no the horizontal components. So the beam will be distorted from the initial round shape. Also never observed.

Or take the resonators in the two arms of the LIGO interferometer. The mirrors are 4km appart, if they would be tilted to compensate for the EA effect, you would directly see the tilt of the mirrors. Once heard a detailed talk from one of the people involved in the mounting of the mirrors. I'm pretty sure he would have noticed that.

I'm mean you have some many applications where it is extremely crucial to be sure about your alignment of your light, x-ray, Thz or microwave, etc. beams down to atomic length scales, and no one has ever noticed an asymmetry in the vertical direction on propagation of the beams...       
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 14, 2018, 04:43:36 PM
Well, yes. Given that the scenarios are analogous, you wouldn't notice a difference.

I'm mean you have some many applications where it is extremely crucial to be sure about your alignment of your light, x-ray, Thz or microwave, etc. beams down to atomic length scales, and no one has ever noticed an asymmetry in the vertical direction on propagation of the beams...       
Interesting - given that the Round Earth is supposed to be in motion, by your own claim simply rotating the setup should completely break it. After all, if everything has to be calculated at atomic length scales then the very slight motion of the setup will be a very significant factor.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 15, 2018, 12:05:57 AM
Do you know what a "frame of reference" is Pete?

It's actually a much simpler example for that experiment that Hex gave that I didn't quite understand at first. Makes perfect sense. You can align the two mirrors until light is seen to be perfectly captured between them in a straight line. If EA was true, then those mirrors would have to be slightly out of parallel to combat the "pull" of the light upwards i.e. the light would be pulled upwards at an angle, so once the light reflects at an angle, it continues to reflect and escape. The mirrors would have to be angled to ensure the light is bouncing back and forth in a "straight" line (would actually be a slight curved line, due to EA, but the angled mirrors would keep it bouncing back and forth to the same spot on each mirror). It's actually a beautiful way to ensure perfect calibration: it's calibrated when the light doesn't escape.

You then turn that 180 degrees... the angles of the mirrors should now be working WITH EA i.e. EA will now be pulling in the opposite direction, and the previously calibrated mirrors will ALSO be angling the light upwards... Any other force affecting the experiment: gravity, centrifugal force, bats, lepricorns, will be exactly the same from one orientation to the other: it's completely irrelevant to the experiment. It's exactly the same frame of reference. Those forces might've affected the orientation of the mirrors (in some minute way) but they would be affecting the 180 degree experiment in exactly the same way... the same frame of reference.

Plus I really don't understand how you seem to define "parallel" as being "perpendicular to the earth". Parallel has a meaning, and it's got nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Sure, when talking about building long bridges, then we can talk about the support columns not being parallel... this is not affecting the definition of parallel, it's just accepting something is NOT parallel... You don't say "those bridge supports are parallel" and expect someone to know that you mean "not really parallel, but adjusted for the curvature of the earth". Parallel is parallel. The laser experiment is very simple. Light is bouncing back and forth in a straight line, 300000km a second... If EA is present, you can think of the experiment as an "easy" way to measure it's affect on a really really really long ray of light.... much further than the furthest distance to the sun in the flat earth model. Hell if you wait around 8 minutes you can simulate a light ray travelling [from] the "RE Sun"
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2018, 08:37:39 AM
What SiDawg said. I honestly can't understand what Pete is arguing here.
If EA is a thing then that would have to be accounted for in these experiments and rotating the apparatus would change the results if the force acts upwards with respect to the flat earth.
From what others are saying it doesn't have to be accounted for and rotating the apparatus doesn't affect the results.
Ergo, EA isn't a thing.

I'm not clear what us RETards are missing ???
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2018, 12:47:28 PM
Yes, I can see that my words were warped completely out of their original meaning. If you're not willing to argue this with a modicum of honesty, then please don't bother.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2018, 01:26:02 PM
I don't know if that was directed at me or SiDawg. I don't think anyone knows what you are trying to argue.
You are maddeningly vague, you're either a terrible communicator or you're being deliberately unclear.
Maybe a diagram would help:

(https://image.ibb.co/c0L7AJ/EA.jpg)

So in the top diagram the two mirrors are parallel. Not "FE parallel" or "RE parallel", there aren't different parallels. Parallel is a definition. Two surfaces are parallel if the distance between them is equal at every corresponding point on the two surfaces.

The light hits one mirror perpendicular to its surface and reflects back to the other mirror and back and forth. Because the two mirrors are parallel the light goes back and forth at the same height. There is no force acting on it which makes it go up or down. If you rotated the apparatus 180 degrees it would look the same and behave the same. This is how we in the RE community believe light behaves. Ergo, we don't believe that there is evidence for EA. If there was a force acting on light which made it rise then the light would not stay at the same level. It would rise no matter how the apparatus is oriented.

If the mirrors are not quite perpendicular then the light will escape. In the middle diagram the mirrors are angled slightly upwards and the light escapes out the top. If the apparatus is rotated 180 degrees now then the behaviour will change, the light will now escape out the bottom. If EA existed then in the middle diagram the light would escape more quickly than when the apparatus is rotated. In the middle diagram the force ADDS to the effect of the angle of the mirrors, in the bottom one it DETRACTS from it. I've not heard of any experiment which shows this effect.

What have I got wrong?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2018, 01:38:14 PM
There are a few things you need to consider. Mostly importantly, precision. Hexagon claims that this is down to atomic length scales - the mirrors are not just kinda-sorta parallel, they are parallel. But this raises an issue. If the Earth is round and spinning, then your setup is constantly rotating. Condescendingly asking me if I know what a frame of reference is doesn't help - the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change. So we face a conundrum: either our mirrors are actually parallel and the light escapes the system, or we calibrate our system by using your earlier proposal: if light doesn't escape the system, then we accept the mirrors to be parallel. In the former case, the system will never work, and in the latter case (aside from the fact that we've just engaged circular reasoning), rotating it by 180 degrees will mess us up regardless of EAT/RE/FE.

Given that optical resonators exist and function, I have to conclude that the extreme level of precision hexy is proposing is not actually required, or achievable for this particular experiment. The incredibly small effect of EAT will be well within the margin of error for the experimental setup.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 15, 2018, 08:10:31 PM
The incredibly small effect of EAT will be well within the margin of error for the experimental setup.
How can you call EA a 'small effect' though? It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me. Certainly something that should be noticeable even presuming an error margin of much less than Hexy is claiming I would think. Or don't you agree? If you don't, why not?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2018, 08:13:36 PM
It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me.
What makes you think that this is the case?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Curious Squirrel on June 15, 2018, 08:41:36 PM
It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me.
What makes you think that this is the case?
Oh right, you believe the Sun is still significant distance away or some such don't you? As EA would also prevent accurate height estimates. Actually I suppose that means we would have no real idea how far away it is wouldn't it? I feel we should be able to get an estimate, but I don't know the math well enough to be sure how to do it.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: iamcpc on June 15, 2018, 08:59:21 PM
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

The problem lies in this we are thinking about this as if each line from the sun is representing a stream of photons or a lazer like the video attached.

The problem with testing this is that sun does not emit light like the video shown below in one concentrated beam going in one direction. The sun emits light more like a light bulb.


If someone wanted to see how this affects perception of the viewer you would only need to put a camera at the other side of the tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCaHvZQnIws
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 15, 2018, 10:22:20 PM
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

The problem lies in this we are thinking about this as if each line from the sun is representing a stream of photons or a lazer like the video attached.

The problem with testing this is that sun does not emit light like the video shown below in one concentrated beam going in one direction. The sun emits light more like a light bulb.
I'm trying not to think of it like a laser. To understand what it would look like if seeing the light from the sun after it has curved upward, I use the analogy of an inferior mirage. In that case, you may still be seeing the source of light via a direct path, but you are also seeing light from a curved path that was directed downward and then, due to atmospheric effects, curves upward to the eye. As a result, you see the object(s) via their direct light path, but also see the mirage that is below the horizon.

My stand is (was) that, in the case of the sun, there is no direct path in EA at such an oblique angle. Instead, all you may intercept is the "mirage"-like upward curving light, which -- like a mirage -- presents the object to the view below the horizon.

But that is if only the un-reflected light of the sun is curved. If all reflected light curves too, then anything illuminated will also be displaced in the y-axis, including the surface of the earth and, ergo, the horizon. So even though the sun light might be upward curving, so is the light from the horizon. So, in effect, EA replaces the curve of the earth's surface with curved light, and that would allow an explanation for why a flat earth might suggest curvature, contrary to the more standard FE argument that there is no appearance of curvature and that arguments for such appearance are misinterpreting the observations.

I shake my head at the perspective and "convergence zone" and "obscuring waves" arguments for things like ships or skylines or celestial objects disappearing beyond the horizon. But this curved light theory is intriguing and challenging (if looking solely at earth-bound phenomenon and excluding beyond-earth evidence as suspect). It strikes me as a sort of similar to the luminiferous aether, as in something that is postulated to exist but to explain natural phenomenon, but not (yet) detectable. I suppose dark energy fits into that sort of category too.

Something I've mulling over is, because the sun isn't a point source of light, wouldn't the appearance of the sun become distorted the greater the angle away from vertical? Again, looking at the sun through atmospheric effects that are light "bendy," the sun does get squashed, terraced, mirrored, stretched, etc. when at a low angle of incidence to the atmosphere. If UA was curving the light of the sun, at close to horizontal to the x-axis, wouldn't the difference between the middle and its edges be bending differently, causing the sun to elongate or squish? Not just within a few degrees of the horizon, but from 10 or 20 degrees elevation, I'd think we'd start seeing something less than spherical.

No?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: iamcpc on June 16, 2018, 01:57:10 AM

I'm trying not to think of it like a laser. To understand what it would look like if seeing the light from the sun after it has curved upward, I use the analogy of an inferior mirage. In that case, you may still be seeing the source of light via a direct path, but you are also seeing light from a curved path that was directed downward and then, due to atmospheric effects, curves upward to the eye. As a result, you see the object(s) via their direct light path, but also see the mirage that is below the horizon.

My stand is (was) that, in the case of the sun, there is no direct path in EA at such an oblique angle. Instead, all you may intercept is the "mirage"-like upward curving light, which -- like a mirage -- presents the object to the view below the horizon.

But that is if only the un-reflected light of the sun is curved. If all reflected light curves too, then anything illuminated will also be displaced in the y-axis, including the surface of the earth and, ergo, the horizon. So even though the sun light might be upward curving, so is the light from the horizon. So, in effect, EA replaces the curve of the earth's surface with curved light, and that would allow an explanation for why a flat earth might suggest curvature, contrary to the more standard FE argument that there is no appearance of curvature and that arguments for such appearance are misinterpreting the observations.

I shake my head at the perspective and "convergence zone" and "obscuring waves" arguments for things like ships or skylines or celestial objects disappearing beyond the horizon. But this curved light theory is intriguing and challenging (if looking solely at earth-bound phenomenon and excluding beyond-earth evidence as suspect). It strikes me as a sort of similar to the luminiferous aether, as in something that is postulated to exist but to explain natural phenomenon, but not (yet) detectable. I suppose dark energy fits into that sort of category too.

Something I've mulling over is, because the sun isn't a point source of light, wouldn't the appearance of the sun become distorted the greater the angle away from vertical? Again, looking at the sun through atmospheric effects that are light "bendy," the sun does get squashed, terraced, mirrored, stretched, etc. when at a low angle of incidence to the atmosphere. If UA was curving the light of the sun, at close to horizontal to the x-axis, wouldn't the difference between the middle and its edges be bending differently, causing the sun to elongate or squish? Not just within a few degrees of the horizon, but from 10 or 20 degrees elevation, I'd think we'd start seeing something less than spherical.

No?


here's an interesting video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9y5nwok1to



Seems to me like you need some sugar water, a small light bulb, a laser pointer, maybe a ruler or some sort of measurment markings too and a camera to easily test this.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 16, 2018, 04:27:51 AM
Condescendingly asking me if I know what a frame of reference is doesn't help
I apologise. I never intentionally mean to offend or condescend, that's what makes this forum such a healthy place for debate (opposed to you tube etc). It's in everyone's interest to keep it civil and free of personal attacks.
- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?

I don't think the fact the earth is moving will affect that experiment. Constant velocity is not a force. Centrifugal force might? Maybe? Gravity might? They're all forces within the frame of reference, but they do have a direction to them, so yeah, sure, when you rotate 180 degrees, you might have changes to the mirrors from those forces.

And the same if the earth was flat right? I'm not sure if you agree with the theory the flat earth is accelerating through space at 9.8m/s, or you believe buoyancy causes gravity or what, but there are forces present on the flat earth too within the reference frame of the experiment, and if you rotate the experiment then the mirrors may be affected by those forces.

So if you ran this experiment two things are going to happen (when you rotate 180 degrees):
1) No change, the light just stays bouncing between the parallel plates
2) The light escapes from the parallel plates

What conclusions could you draw from those two results?
1) If no change, then either a) the experiment was calibrated for other forces present (gravity, buoyancy, ea etc),  and the forces of EA perfectly balanced with the new alignment of the mirrors or b) any other forces present had no effect on the experiment to being with, and EA is not present
2) If the light escapes, then either a) the experiment was calibrated for other forces present (gravity, buoyancy, ea etc) and we can't tell if light is now escaping because of EA or one of the other forces or b) any other force present had no effect on the experiment, and EA is the force pulling the light out of the experiment

Sound fair?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: SiDawg on June 16, 2018, 05:50:33 AM
Sorry one more option, the act of rotating might throw the calibration mechanically, but you can just repeat the experiment to rule that out i.e. keep flipping 180 degrees, see if result is the same
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 16, 2018, 08:20:08 AM
- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?

I think I finally understood the argument. So the light reflects off mirror A and hits mirror B but in the time it takes the light to get from A to B the whole set up has rotated slightly so while A and B are still parallel B is now at a slightly different angle with respect to A than it was when the light left A.
Is that it?
Except I'm not sure that's how light works. Or anything works. But this is where my knowledge of physics is starting to run out.
By the same reasoning though, on a flat earth what is accelerating upwards the light would escape out of the bottom of the mirrors wouldn't it because in between the light leaving A and reaching B the earth has accelerated slightly so the mirrors are higher with respect to the beam of light.
???
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 16, 2018, 09:10:33 AM
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?   
If the experiment is to determine which model is correct, then we need to understand the expected outcome for each experiment. I've described why I don't believe the experiment will be precise in either model.

I don't think the fact the earth is moving will affect that experiment.
But if the Earth is round, then the velocity isn't constant, is it? Not if we're proposing atomic length scale of precision, for sure.

I think I finally understood the argument. [...]
You've got it. We're looking at a setup with an extreme amount of variables. The appeal of oversimplifying it is obvious, but it massively detracts from the experiment's conclusiveness. The "noise" from multiple factors (FE or RE) would be greater than the "signal" we're trying to measure. And both the effect and the noise are so insignificant that we'd normally not bother with them in experimental setups.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 18, 2018, 03:10:05 PM
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

I've come up with this from the above diagram to illustrate what I think EA explains about the phenomenological "setting" of a sun on a parallel plane above a flat earth:

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/25ps4fl.jpg)
The solid lines are actual paths. The dotted lines are the perceived paths. The times and scale are notional, just to illustrate the concept.

The sun is emanating all of these rays simultaneously, but to an observer on the surface of the earth, the sun's passage overhead alters which rays he can see, and thus where he (or she) perceives the sun to be.

A solar noon (actual noon in the cartoon), the vertical rays of the sun are "straight up" (realizing that there is a z-axis too, but keeping it in the x- and y-axes for simplification). As the sun moves westward, the angled sunlight that becomes more and more curved due this theoretical EA, and the angle at which they reach the observers eye becomes more and more declined. Because of EA, less angled or directed sunlight doesn't reach the observer, so all he sees is the result of whatever curved light is coincident with his increase distance from point of solar noon on the earth.

Until, the flat earth becomes tangent to the sun's rays, here depicted at 7PM observer's time. The sun's rays will be parallel to the earth's surface, which will start to obstruct the sun.

However, reflected light curves also, so everything will appear to "dip" to some degree, including the horizon. With EA, the horizon DOESN'T rise to the height of the eye. It "dips" just as it would with a curved earth (and no EA "bendy light.")  So this theoretical arrangement of sun/earth and "bendy" light could explain what we see at sunset (or sunrise) on a flat earth without resort to explanations of "perspective + convergence layer + magnifying lensing"

How's this look and sound?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: iamcpc on June 18, 2018, 08:17:01 PM
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

(https://i.imgur.com/zz3HZqI.gif)

I've come up with this from the above diagram to illustrate what I think EA explains about the phenomenological "setting" of a sun on a parallel plane above a flat earth:

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/25ps4fl.jpg)
The solid lines are actual paths. The dotted lines are the perceived paths. The times and scale are notional, just to illustrate the concept.

The sun is emanating all of these rays simultaneously, but to an observer on the surface of the earth, the sun's passage overhead alters which rays he can see, and thus where he (or she) perceives the sun to be.

A solar noon (actual noon in the cartoon), the vertical rays of the sun are "straight up" (realizing that there is a z-axis too, but keeping it in the x- and y-axes for simplification). As the sun moves westward, the angled sunlight that becomes more and more curved due this theoretical EA, and the angle at which they reach the observers eye becomes more and more declined. Because of EA, less angled or directed sunlight doesn't reach the observer, so all he sees is the result of whatever curved light is coincident with his increase distance from point of solar noon on the earth.

Until, the flat earth becomes tangent to the sun's rays, here depicted at 7PM observer's time. The sun's rays will be parallel to the earth's surface, which will start to obstruct the sun.

However, reflected light curves also, so everything will appear to "dip" to some degree, including the horizon. With EA, the horizon DOESN'T rise to the height of the eye. It "dips" just as it would with a curved earth (and no EA "bendy light.")  So this theoretical arrangement of sun/earth and "bendy" light could explain what we see at sunset (or sunrise) on a flat earth without resort to explanations of "perspective + convergence layer + magnifying lensing"

How's this look and sound?


This creates a problem with the flat earth models with the round earth "north pole" in the center. If the sun was passing over the round earth "equator" then people closer to the middle of the circle would see a round earth "south" sunset while the people closer to the edge of the circle would see a round earth "north" sunset. which i don't believe we see.


1. In these models there must also be some sort of bending (other than just down toward the surface) which pulls the light to make us perceive the sun always setting in the West.
2. there must be some difference between round earth west and flat earth west.
3. Both.

Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 18, 2018, 08:45:52 PM
If you're depending on my diagrams and description of how I am interpreting how EA works, I'll hazard an answer. Just beware that we may be spiraling further away from the original theory by compounding errors in understanding.

If you're asking based on what parsifal or other proponents have presented rather than what I've come up with, better you get it from one of them.

But for me, I understand this to be a 3 dimensional effect, with the horizontal not only being in the x-axis but also the z-axis. The vertical, of course, is only y-axis. The acceleration occurs in y, but what has heretofore been referenced as dx, is is also dz for those N or S of the vertical plane of the sun. In a way, each observer has an x/y coordinate view of the sun, but for those N or S, that coordinate plane rotates as the sun passes from horizon to horizon, passing through solar noon at it's zenith, which won't be overhead but declined depending on far away from the sun's path across the earth he  or she is.

But EA would neverthless be impacted the perceived elevation of the sun. But that doesn't mean it would set/rise in the S or N. Only that it would contribute to the elevation of the sun which in round earth we attribute to the ecliptic and tilt of earth. Yes, on flat earth, the sun spirals from the Tropics, but that isn't enough to account for the declination of the sun throughout the day. The geometry doesn't work. But with EA, the light curving would explain why the sun transits the sky at lower elevations when viewed from the higher (or lower) latitudes.

Make sense? I'm typing extemporaneously and so my be "word souping."

Basically, I see EA serving as an explanation for why the surface of earth might be perceived as convex. But if it's light that is curving, accelerating upward, then that would make the convexity of earth an illusion, including not just sun rising and setting on the horizon of a flat earth, but also the declination that a rotating spherical earth exhibits during its orbit due to tilt.

The question I'm trying to resolve is how would you detect the difference?
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 18, 2018, 08:57:11 PM
I haven't taken the time to work it out, but in my mind's eye, I see two potential differences between a round earth with straight light (no EA) and a flat earth with curved light (EA).

1. Based on experience and study of light "bending" due to atmospheric conditions, I feel like there would have to be some distortion of the sun if it was being seen via an upward curving light effect. In the vertical, it seems to me like the upper limb of the sun would be bending more than the lower limb, which would result in the sun becoming more "squashed" as it presented in lower elevations. In other words, the upper rim of the sun would "dip" more quickly than the lower rim, similar to what happens with refraction or miraging sometimes. I don't know. Perhaps the sun's diameter is too small such that the difference in the EA effect from one edge to the other wouldn't be manifest.

2. I asked a week or so ago when this topic was relatively new, what would be seen at increased elevations of observation? In real life, I know I can rise up and see a 2nd sunset. With EA, I don't think that is possible. Gaining altitude intercepts rays of the sun that are prone to make the sun look lower in the sky, so instead of bringing the sun back to a higher elevation, you'd actually be putting your eye in the path of sunlight that would make the sun appear to be lower. The answer may be that the 2nd sunset phenomenon occurs not because the sun is "raised" with added observer elevation but that climbing in observation altitude causes the apparent horizon to dip more, making the sun only appear to rise above it.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: edby on June 24, 2018, 10:37:13 AM
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

On the assumption that light travels in (approximately) straight lines, this suggests the sun and moon are much farther away than FET suggests. E.g., see the diagram below. When an object (black horizontal line) is above the observer, it subtends an angle alpha, when farther away, a smaller angle beta.

That is RET.

On FET, we have to posit a curvature that makes the angle equal to alpha again.

Since this must be true for all observers at any point on the ground, or in the air, we now have a model for the propagation of light, given that we can predict the angular distance of A-B perceived at any point in space.

This would require some complex maths, however. Has any FE researcher attempted this?

Intuitively, the light from A’ must have a greater curvature than light coming from B’. Also, there will come a point where the object is sufficiently far away that light from A’ will be horizontal. At that point, the object will start to shrink in appearance.

What happens if the object at A’B’ moves to the right, so that the point now at A’ is at the point B’? We know the curvature is lower for light emitted at B’, so the curvature must continually be lessening. I am not sure it is possible mathematically to solve for all these conditions.

This also needs to be made experimentally consistent with terrestrial observations of light propagation, where light travels in (approximately) straight lines.
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2018, 11:57:15 PM
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

EA can just use the standard explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Title: Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
Post by: ICanScienceThat on July 07, 2018, 03:55:00 AM
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

EA can just use the standard explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Did you notice how blurry all these images of the expanded lights are?
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Streets_at_night.jpg (won't embed, sorry)
Have you ever seen anyone ever try those "explanations" with an exposure low enough that the light doesn't bloom out? You know... so you get a nice crisp photo of the light source like you do with a solar filter:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0390/6029/products/Sun_6ce64608-1841-4a5a-ace0-35c369547592_1903x.jpg?v=1500559741)