41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 08, 2018, 04:14:45 AM »

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?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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!

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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?

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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)

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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:

• 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?

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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...)

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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:


Random:

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 30, 2018, 11:43:06 AM »

Map updates are for new roads. If you're using a gps for navigating sea, bush, desert etc you don't need to update... The map just tells you "what stuff is at that location"... The land map doesn't change. There are no gaps in GPS coverage. Whether or not a particular brand of gps keeps their road/feature maps updated: who knows. This is off topic. If flat earth trusted gps we wouldn't have to present alternate ways of calculating distances.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 30, 2018, 09:14:54 AM »

Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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?

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 29, 2018, 06:28:08 AM »

Would also love to hear how the supposed "Electromagnetic Accelerator" makes light bend upwards beneath the clouds... in a U shape?

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 29, 2018, 02:35:19 AM »

The Flat Earth movement adopted a bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole. You can read about it in Lady Blount's works.

So, this?:

(from https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7548.0)

This exercise applies no matter what flat earth map you believe in right? Incidentally: I've flown Melbourne AU to LA USA (and back): I did not fly over the rest of the world to get there.

Also planning on travelling from Melbourne to Hawaii later in the year: that'll be interesting right? Should be 60% of the time/distance according to RE... according to that map it should be FURTHER than LA, about 115% of the distance? I'll let you know: I'll take photos if you like!

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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?

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« 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?