EA Sunrise
« on: November 19, 2018, 03:31:33 PM »


This was a cool photo taken by a local San Diego photographer about 40 minutes before sunrise on the morning of November 14th..

According to TimeandDate, the sun was over the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.

That's over 6200 miles away from San Diego.
The sun had risen in El Paso, TX. (600 miles to the east)
The sun had not yet risen in Tucson, AZ. (365 miles to the east)

The bottom of the clouds in the photograph that are being illuminated by the pre-sunrise sun is at an altitude of 15,000 ft.

I cannot find any way for this to be possible in any current flat earth model that does not integrate the Electromagnetic Accelerator theory.



A problem with EAT as a flat earth solution though is that it contradicts many other elements of more standard flat earth models, including some of the key experiments described in Earth Not a Globe.

EAT would explain how/why celestial objects can appear to descend to the horizon and be occluded by the earth. It would explain how we all see the same face of the moon regardless of our location on earth. It would explain phenomena like these clouds being lit from below.

EAT was proposed (by Parsifal, I believe) 10 years ago, resulting in a hypothesis and a preliminary formula but little else.  And it's been disparaged as "bendy light" when it's proposed (without integration with the rest of a flat earth model) as a possible flat earth answer to some observable phenomena that would seem otherwise inexplicable on a flat earth. But the concept merits barely a mention in the TFES wiki and what is there hasn't been substantively edited since it's version publication.

I'm an EA skeptic, but I think it's the best hope for building out a viable flat earth model. Is there any discussion to be had on how progress might be made on this front? How might an experiment be constructed to test for EA? How can EA on a flat earth be distinguishable from no-EA on a spherical earth?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2018, 03:43:24 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2018, 03:42:59 PM »
There's also the phenomenon of clouds at higher altitudes still being lit by the sun after sunset while lower clouds are not.



Without EA, I tried to work out a way for the sun's pattern on the earth to be governed by a spotlight effect, and that maybe the albedo of the ocean to the west and maybe the Sea of Cortez or Sonoran desert to the east (of San Diego) could be reflecting and lighting clouds from beneath or highlighting higher clouds and leaving lower clouds in shadow.

But straight line geometry doesn't work. Only if sunlight bends upward and away from earth, by whatever mechanism, can I see how that would work.

Refraction can bend light away from the surface of earth, as in the creation of inferior mirage, but those are localized, near-surface, low angle of incidence conditions and not explicable for phenomenon requires hundreds to thousands of miles of sunlight travel and over tens of thousands of feet of altitude. The layered density of the atmo-layer is just not constructed that way to produce that kind of lensing.

The hypothetical EA could account for it, but only if it's true.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 868
    • View Profile
Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2018, 12:09:43 PM »
Walter Bislin’s model provides a neat explanation of bendy light.
His hypothesis is that the earth is flat, but that light bends in such a way that the earth appears to be a globe, i.e. appears exactly the way it would appear if light travelled in straight lines. It’s a neat explanation because we can re-use all of the RE theoretical explanations (based on the assumption of non-bending light) but reinterpret them in light of the fact that the earth is flat.

He notes the problem that ‘There are no known physical laws that can bend light so much and in this exact fashion to produce the real observations as shown in this Model.’

However this is fallacious. We do have the physical laws, namely those provided by RET, we are merely changing the underlying assumption that these laws are explained by a globe earth, to account for the fact that the earth is flat.

Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2018, 04:57:59 AM »
His hypothesis is that the earth is flat, but that light bends in such a way that the earth appears to be a globe...
It's a hypothetical hypothesis for when he puts on his flat earth advocate hat to try to actually model a flat earth.

But it's not uniquely his. Actual flat earth (not role-playing) advocates hypothesize the same thing. For instance, it's an argument made by the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory that was we might deduce as earth convexity is actually the illusion created by light bending upwards.

But even those who don't subscribe to EAT can also be seen explaining was appears to be convexity to actually be light bending. Tom linked to a video that actually had some pretty good animation of that, but it's since been deleted for some reason. Zorbakim has been on here pitching a not-very-good explanation for how perspective causes that "curve" appearance by explaining it's light that bends, not the earth. Others ascribe it to refraction. Others to lensing by the atmosphere due to moisture.

Whatever the mechanism, to make the earth appear to be convex, light has to bend away from from the flat earth, not toward it. Bislin's model acknowledges this, though he acknowledges he knows of no mechanism that could be attributed to such upward bending light. (He's never heard of EAT, I imagine.) But his model also takes it a necessary step further and must invoke a sideways bend to light as well in order to put celestial bodies in their "right" perceived locations.

Most of the claimed mechanisms that could cause the illusion of convexity, manifesting itself with such phenomena as the "sinking ship effect" for example, are nonsense or fatally flawed. EAT is the only one (so far) that I've seen that would have any chance of being feasible, assuming it could be proven and proved distinguishable from non-EA light  with an actually convex surface spherical earth.

Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2018, 09:28:49 PM »
His hypothesis is that the earth is flat, but that light bends in such a way that the earth appears to be a globe...
It's a hypothetical hypothesis for when he puts on his flat earth advocate hat to try to actually model a flat earth.

But it's not uniquely his. Actual flat earth (not role-playing) advocates hypothesize the same thing. For instance, it's an argument made by the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory that was we might deduce as earth convexity is actually the illusion created by light bending upwards.

But even those who don't subscribe to EAT can also be seen explaining was appears to be convexity to actually be light bending. Tom linked to a video that actually had some pretty good animation of that, but it's since been deleted for some reason. Zorbakim has been on here pitching a not-very-good explanation for how perspective causes that "curve" appearance by explaining it's light that bends, not the earth. Others ascribe it to refraction. Others to lensing by the atmosphere due to moisture.

Whatever the mechanism, to make the earth appear to be convex, light has to bend away from from the flat earth, not toward it. Bislin's model acknowledges this, though he acknowledges he knows of no mechanism that could be attributed to such upward bending light. (He's never heard of EAT, I imagine.) But his model also takes it a necessary step further and must invoke a sideways bend to light as well in order to put celestial bodies in their "right" perceived locations.

Most of the claimed mechanisms that could cause the illusion of convexity, manifesting itself with such phenomena as the "sinking ship effect" for example, are nonsense or fatally flawed. EAT is the only one (so far) that I've seen that would have any chance of being feasible, assuming it could be proven and proved distinguishable from non-EA light  with an actually convex surface spherical earth.
The sinking ship effect is not an appearance of "convexity" at all and there are no flaws with the standard FE explanation of it.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 09:32:51 PM by George Jetson »

Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2018, 09:52:29 PM »
The sinking ship effect is not an appearance of "convexity" at all...
Yes, it is. Bottom-up disappearance of objects over a horizon is a key indicator of convexity from the perspective of one on a convex surface.

...and there are no flaws with the standard FE explanation of it.
There are enormous flaws in most FE explanations of the "sunken ship effect" on a flat surface. I'm not even sure which one is "standard."

Perspective?
Resolution?
Waves?
Convergence Zone?
Compression?
Refraction?

Some combination of the above?

The critiques of these are legion. The object of this discussion topic isn't to belabor that premise. It's to promote discussion about the one proposed (and decidedly non-standard) FE explanation: Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory.

Don't do "low content" mere gainsay of the premise that standard FE explanations are flawed. Please, start a fresh topic about the one you believe is viable, explain why and I'll be happy to engage.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2018, 06:50:52 PM »



Isn’t the obvious issue with that diagram describing EAT are the light rays coming from the Sun?  The sun is a sphere, where are the light rays coming from the sides and top of that spherical Sun?  And if light rays are coming from a sphere in all directions, then those clouds in the diagram would be lit from top, bottom, not just from underneath... would they not?

Re: EA Sunrise
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2018, 07:36:03 PM »
Drawing rays from a light source is always confusing.

The way I try to remember it as that rays are better understood from the point of view of the receptor/receiver than the source. Yes, the sun emits light in all directions, but what that is supposed to be showing (and others can argue otherwise) is what light is reaching particular points in space or on earth. It's rather impossible to draw every infinite ray. It's a simplified diagram.

The illumination of the clouds, for instance. It's not one beam of light striking the cloud after being emitted downward from the sun. The far edge of the sun will emit light that reaches the clouds. The near edge will too. Some light that is emitted at an angle vice downward may be striking the top of the clouds.

It's just a cartoon illustration to represent a concept of a particular path of light from a sun to a bottom side of a cloud. Overly simplified to not get bogged down in all the other infinite rays that would also be present. Like I said, I try to think backwards from the thing receiving the light back to it's source.