### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - hexagon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
« on: June 15, 2018, 10:50:55 AM »
Hm, how could you be sure about the position of the north star?

According to the natural law of perspective, the apparent position of the north star in the sky is lower than it's real position, so your measured angles do not reflect the real position of the north star.

According to the electromagnetic accelerator theory the light emitted from the north star is bended upwards. Your measured angles assume light that is propagating in straight lines, therefor your measurement is flawed and does not gives you the real position of the north star.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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...

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky
« on: June 13, 2018, 11:42:07 AM »

Especially the part about the micro-cavity. Only problem is, the guys did not get it, that the paper they are referring to is a theory and simulation paper. No experimental evidence in there. Beside, that they do not understand what is really going on. But that's only partly their fault, they only refer to the press release and that is written in a bit misleading way.

Anyway, no bending light experiment in that article...

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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...

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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...

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

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.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simulation
« on: June 12, 2018, 01:32:26 PM »
Can you model and simulate the flat earth model using 3d software?

To be more specific:
• After modelling it, can you show the suns movement in the sky as it rises east and sets west exactly 180 degrees from where it rose?
• After modelling it, can you show the constellations as seen from earth from both the northern and the southern hemisphere?
• After modelling it, can you show the lunar phases as we see them from earth, including the full moon?

I would say it not possible with existing software, because the laws of optics, light propagation, perspective etc. the flat-earth explanations of all this are based on are not implemented in existing software.

So first of all, you would have to write some code, to implement all this. But the next problem is, that more less all this flat-earth models are just qualitative descriptions of how it might work, you rarely find any formula that could be used as a basis for your code.

Of course, if you use standard software just taking a flat earth into account, the result will have nothing to do with our visual perception of the world around us. But that's somehow unfair...

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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?

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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...

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 11, 2018, 11:41:20 AM »

Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:

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...

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Far Away is the Horizon?
« on: June 11, 2018, 07:27:33 AM »
Is there a way of calculating how far W is?
Tom previously said that the horizon was "the merging of perspective lines". So I assumed that meant you couldn't see anything beyond that, maybe I misunderstood.

You calculate it in the same way as you calculate the position of H. Instead of putting the distance between eye level and sea level into the formula , you put the distance between eye level and the top of the mast into the formula.

And the formula is d = x/tan(1°/60), where d is the distance to the point where something x above or below the eye level appears to be at eye level due to the effect of perspective.
I thought so too, but that means a 3000-mile high sun would be nearly 10.3 million miles away when seen setting along the horizon.

I know... The problem is, there is no formula in EnaG, not even sum numbers or estimates given. I guess, he never thought about the consequences of his model.

It's a model for what he experienced in his daily life, nothing more. And in daily life it works more or less. And then he extrapolated this qualitatively to situations like sunrise/sunset without doing the math.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Circularity Objection
« on: June 08, 2018, 02:18:39 PM »
It assumes a globe earth in the moment you transfer your data on a map.
I wonder if this is an English language problem. Do you mean that it implies a globe earth in the moment you transfer your data on a map?

English 'assumes' and 'implies' have radically different meanings.

Possible, I'm not a native speaker...

I wanted to say, that it will not fit together to a nice map if just take your raw data and you try to draw a 2D map out of them. You have to do a projection like any cartographer has to do. You have to adjust the measured angles and/or distances.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Far Away is the Horizon?
« on: June 08, 2018, 01:56:02 PM »
In the figure above, the horizon is at H. The sun appears to set at W, which is further away than H.  H is where the earth's surface stops appearing to rise to eye-level, but beyond that, object appear to sink into a convergence zone behind it.
Is there a way of calculating how far W is?
Tom previously said that the horizon was "the merging of perspective lines". So I assumed that meant you couldn't see anything beyond that, maybe I misunderstood.

You calculate it in the same way as you calculate the position of H. Instead of putting the distance between eye level and sea level into the formula , you put the distance between eye level and the top of the mast into the formula.

And the formula is d = x/tan(1°/60), where d is the distance to the point where something x above or below the eye level appears to be at eye level due to the effect of perspective.

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Circularity Objection
« on: June 08, 2018, 12:53:09 PM »
But this objection is wrong [according to FE], you only get a nice globe, because your measurements were done on a globe.
But if it’s ‘because’ rather than ‘assuming that’, then FE position collapses.

Put it another way:

FE: You are wrong because you have assumed that the earth is a globe.
FE: You are wrong because the earth is a globe.

See the difference?

Yes, that's my point. The objection they have, is a pseudo argument.

if you're dealing with sphere, its not a problem to take this into account, it's a must. While on a flat-earth, it would be a must to take a plane into account.

The geometry you use, must be the one of the space you're dealing with.

20
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Circularity Objection
« on: June 08, 2018, 12:34:32 PM »
Yes, if you directly project the measurements onto a model of the globe earth, then it will directly fit. But flat-earthers are right if they say, no one is carrying around globes for navigation, everyone uses flat maps.
But they would have to concede the flat maps have errors! But the Flat earthers deny there are errors.
If the earth would be flat and you would assume a globe you would end up with a completely distorted globe.
The ‘tape measurement’ system does not assume a globe.

If we started with Lat/Lon coordinates and inferred a distance from that, assuming a spherical surface, then that would be ‘assuming a globe’.

I don’t know if you are confused yourself, or whether you are trying to represent the arguments of a person who is deeply confused!

It assumes a globe earth in the moment you transfer your data on a map.

It's easy to see. Let's assume two groups of surveyors are starting at the same point. And they do their triangulation measurements along two different directions. And the angle between the two directions is 60°. Now the proceed like this for 1000km. After that both change their directions by 60°. On a flat earth they would now meet after 500km under an angle of 0° degree. And all the points they measured would fit together to a nice triangle each side 1000km long, all angles 60°.

And on a globe?

They would first proceed along two great circles that intersect at the starting point under an angle of  60°. After 1000km they would change their direction again by 60° to approach each other. But are they now following the same great circle? No, at a distance unequal to 500km they would meet under an angle unequal to 0°, because they are following two different great circles. To meet in a straight line on the same great circle, they would have to turn by a bit more than 60°. But anyway, they would not meet after 500 km, because also the initial 60° angle was wrong.

You see, in the whole procedure of large scale mapping you have to take into account, what is the shape of the underlying surface. Only on small scales you can neglect it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >