#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3856
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #20 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.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### 6or1/2Dozen

• 66
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #21 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 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.

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.

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #22 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?

Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #23 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!
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #24 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?
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### Mark_1984

• 132
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #25 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.

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #26 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?
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12395
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #27 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.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #28 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?
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12395
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #29 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.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #30 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?
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #31 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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12395
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #32 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.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2018, 11:17:56 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #33 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.

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #34 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?
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #35 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.

Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12395
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #36 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?

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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2018, 12:07:25 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #37 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:

Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #38 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:

Random:

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.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12395
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #39 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.

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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 08:20:03 AM by Pete Svarrior »