#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2018, 09:21:04 AM »
If you look at the original illustration there is another obvious drawback of the EA concept. The 6am/6pm approach the surface almost tangential, therefor the sun would appear to stay just at the horizon, but not behind or below the horizon. And that would be the lowest point. Because of the constant upward acceleration the beams that are emitted under a slightly larger angel would approach the observer in an upward direction. That would lead to the paradox that sun would appear as being below the surface but still be visible.

This could be solved if one would assume that the upward acceleration is not constant, it stops acting on light that is tangential to the surface, but then the sun would never disappear, it would stay all the time at the horizon until its starts to rise again.

Another problem is the light that shines perpendicular onto the surface. If we take the term constant acceleration literally, this light would feel a acceleration in the opposite direction towards the sun, so it would be slow downed. And cause of the speed of light is the product of wavelength and frequency, either both of them or at least one of them would have to change.

Similar problems would occur for the other directions. The horizontal velocity component would be unaffected,while the vertical component would slow down. For the tangential 6am/6pm light, the vertical component would be zero, so the light would propagate with the initial horizontal component parallel to the earth surface. Lets assume an initial angle of 45° for this light, the speed of light would reduced by a factor 1/sqrt(2). The morning or evening light from the sun would therfor be significantly slower than the light emitted directly parallel to the surface....

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2018, 09:25:00 AM »
but not behind or below the horizon
This is untrue. Eventually, some parts of the Sun would become invisible because all of the light emitted by them would curve away from the observer, rather than reach him. There is nothing tangential about it, because the acceleration is constant and upward. Making it something other than constant would create the problem you're describing.

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

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2018, 10:55:07 AM »
That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.

Its like the example of the projectile movement. At the highest point of the parabola the motion is parallel to the surface.

Of course it is only tangential at one point, it does not continuously follow this direction. But that's even worse, because for every one further away the light approaches him by an negative angle, therefore pointing upwards, so it would appear as if the sun is inside the earth.

Just look at the illustration of the projectile motion and extrapolate the apparent origin of the projectile along every point of its curve assuming that the projectile is going straight at every point. That's how the EA concept let's you think the sun is sinking in the sky, the light is curved, but the apparent position of the sun is the linear extrapolation of the light direction if it approaches you.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2018, 11:02:22 AM »
That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.
Oh, I see, by "tangential" you mean "at some point it is briefly tangential". Sure, for some light rays that will be the case sometimes.

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

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2018, 11:12:06 AM »
Seems to be difficult to understand... I can try again... When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth. So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.

It would simply never disappear.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2018, 11:41:51 AM »
When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth.
So far, so good. We call this phenomenon "night".

So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.
No, it wouldn't. Those light rays would never reach an observer.

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

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2018, 12:06:23 PM »
Then you agree that the furthest light rays approach the observer tangential with an angle of 0°? But then the sun stays at the horizon, and not below the horizon.

But if the light rays are continuously curved beyond 0° than you will see the light coming from below.

It is very simple and obvious to see if you just draw one more light ray to the left or right in the figure of the original post.

Otherwise, the figure is made in a very clever way. Who ever made it just left out the critical parts where the light light beams emerging from the sun under such a flat angle that the light is curved upwards in the literal sense.

And just as a reminder, in case you think such flat angles are not possible: "Any given part of a light source will emit light in all possible directions."

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #47 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...)

« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 12:52:56 PM by SiDawg »
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
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2018, 01:51:39 PM »
I have no idea what EA theory is, simply putting down some possibilities seeing as the information is limited
And I already asked you to refrain from making things up - it will get you nowhere.

I'm well aware of what acceleration is: not lost in the slightest.
Then please explain how your diagrams are consistent with the idea of constant upwards acceleration.

So again, going back to my image... if there is a force pushing light upwards, are there also forces pushing some light sideways?
No.

Are you proposing EA as a complete alternative to perspective?
No.

Or is it only an upwards force pulling light upwards?
Nobody said it was a force, nor that only light would be affected.

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...)
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.

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

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2018, 02:34:21 PM »
If it is not a force, what is it? Acceleration is usually seen as originating in a force acting on an object which leads to a change of velocity and/or direction. Are there examples where something is accelerated without a force acting on it?

What else is affected? I'm not sure if light is seen here as electromagnetic wave. If yes, I would assume that also microwaves, radio-waves, THz radiation, x-rays, UV and IR light, etc. are effected. Something beyond that? Charged particles like electrons or protons? Also neutrons and neutrinos? The Higgs-Boson?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2018, 05:08:02 PM »
If it is not a force, what is it?
I didn't say it isn't one.

I'm not sure if light is seen here as electromagnetic wave.
It is.

<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 #51 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

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
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #52 on: June 01, 2018, 06:13:30 AM »
are you saying you now accept that the core principles of "RE Perspective" are beyond dispute and accepted fact?
You continue trying to conflate my actions as a moderator with my personal views. The two are firmly separate, and I don't appreciate your repeated attempts at changing that. Naturally, I can't claim perfection, but I do make a conscious effort to leave my views out of my moderation.

Also, the fact that EA exists independently of other aspects does not require me to make any statement about said other aspects - that's the very point of "independence".

Perhaps I misread: perhaps he too is saying it's just an additional effect to perspective.
That is how it reads to me, but obviously I can't be completely certain.

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

I mean, on a technicality, yes, but if you're going to make a list of all things that I didn't make a definitive statement here due to them being off-topic, then you're going to need a much longer list. And it'll still be largely irrelevant.

<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 #53 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.
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
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2018, 08:29:03 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.

<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 #55 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.
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
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2018, 10:34:49 AM »
There's a picture, and there's you're short responses. Have I missed something?
Yes. A quick Google search reveals a couple of Wiki pages and discussion threads across both this forum and the old one. As others have pointed out, this is a very old theory.

I don't get why you're taking this so personally and acting so irritable.
Neither of these things are taking place. I'm simply supplying you with factual statements.

<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 #57 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)
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
• 12427
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #58 on: June 06, 2018, 05:24:38 AM »
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?
Wrong. And, again, the Sun does not project light rays in a single direction.

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?
This is an absurd suggestion, which, again, seems to assume that sunlight is somehow comparable to an array of lasers. The *actual* effects of light curving upwards in this fashion is that you'll expect sunset to occur later as your elevation increases - which is hardly a "problem" - and that you will still see some sunlight after the Sun has apparently dipped below the horizon in its entirety - again, hardly controversial.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 05:26:11 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

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #59 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?

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