*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« 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.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2018, 04:12:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #1 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

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2018, 04:41:07 AM »
Here is discussion of experiments showing that light bends upwards:

« Last Edit: April 06, 2018, 04:56:11 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #3 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.


*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8785
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #4 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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #5 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.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9930
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #6 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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #7 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.



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]


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.


[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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5671
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #8 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?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Macarios

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #9 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...)


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2018, 03:17:54 AM »

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...)



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.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 03:29:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #11 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

Macarios

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2018, 07:11:28 AM »

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...)



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?



Introducing Bendy Light will make every Flat Earther bend light the way they need, and it will surely make them conflict with each other.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 07:14:02 AM by Macarios »

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2018, 07:38:20 PM »

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).

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.

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #14 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?
Questions not yet answered by a FE:
- Why would "they" lie to us?
- Don't you think "they" would have tried to shut down the FES if this was a "dark secret"?
- Can you explain why "they" would spent so much money and time on spacial researches/accessories/ vehicles and actors, books, teachers, online images, toys, maps, schools just for a prank?
- "I wanna be an astronaut!" *proceed* Government: "sry lol space is clozed u cant go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #15 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."
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 05:04:51 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #16 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 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.

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.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 05:18:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Macarios

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #17 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". :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6520
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #18 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.

Macarios

Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #19 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.