#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2018, 09:28:33 AM »
... or think of it this way: if the sun sets in EA theory because light rays start to be pulled upwards above the viewer so the sun is no longer visible, do you think this would occur first to the top of the object or the bottom of the object?

To my mind, the point at which the light rays bend above you, starts to happen to the top of the sun before it happens to the bottom of the sun... And again, fully realise light rays are going in all different directions, but we're talking about the LAST rays of light yes? At some point absolutely NO rays of light reach the observer, because they are all being pulled upwards away from the observer. The distance sufficient for the top rays of light to be pulled away from the observer occurs before the bottom, because the top is higher than the bottom.

Sorry for double post: bit larger than just an edit!
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

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8738
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #61 on: June 06, 2018, 10:14:36 AM »
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?

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #62 on: June 06, 2018, 10:35:05 AM »
Thanks Tom. There you have it... Bottom disappears first, and the sun disappears below the horizon and not between the viewer and the earth.
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
• 13201
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #63 on: June 06, 2018, 11:19:49 AM »
What part of "the sun has a top and a bottom" suggests i think that?
None. But let's ask a more honest question. Which part of "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" suggests that you think they project light in a single direction?

Why, it's this part: "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"

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.
No, that simply doesn't follow. Yes, some of the light will eventually stop reaching the observer. Specificially, those rays projected from the bottom of the Sun.

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?)
Yes, that was rather silly. But you still seem fundamentally confused about the consequences of light rays being constantly accelerated upwards.

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?
No.

<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 #64 on: June 08, 2018, 03:19:48 AM »
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?
No.

So when does sun set occur then?

If there are rays pointing in all directions being pulled upwards away from the earth, then the sun can be seen when those light rays hit the observer, and NOT seen when those light rays DON'T reach the observer. Just look at that diagram in OP: the light rays at sun set are the final rays that are bending so much that the sun appears directly in front of the observer at sun set. If the observer is FURTHER away, or the sun is further away, then it follows that none of the rays of light will reach the observer any more, because they either hit the earth infront of the observer, or they bend upwards above the observer. No light rays reach the observer, therefore the sun has "set".

No matter what direction the light rays are emitted from the sun, there is no way to avoid the upward pull, just like an archer: they have a limit to the power they can fire an arrow, and gravity or "the force which is accelerating the ground upwards at 9.8m/s/s" is constant: they can aim higher or lower to affect the trajectory and the distance of the arrow, but there's still a limit to how far they can fire the arrow. The sun can emit light rays in all directions, but if all rays are being pulled upwards, then there's a limit to how far those sun rays can reach.
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 #65 on: June 08, 2018, 04:14:45 AM »

Here's the original image with some additional rays added: the observer at 8pm no longer sees the sun, because no light rays from the sun hit him... The sun "set" at 6pm because after that time, no light rays reached the earth any more. The light rays have been pulled upwards away above the observer. Have I misunderstood something?
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
• 13201
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #66 on: June 08, 2018, 06:25:43 AM »
So when does sun set occur then?
When the Sun appears to dip below the horizon.

<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 #67 on: June 08, 2018, 11:06:34 AM »
So when does sun set occur then?
When the Sun appears to dip below the horizon.

And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
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
• 13201
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #68 on: June 08, 2018, 11:20:28 AM »
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.

<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 #69 on: June 08, 2018, 11:39:57 AM »
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.

Are we still debating EA theory here? Are you debating on the side of supporting EA theory? Can you draw a picture or describe what you mean in more detail?
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
• 13201
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2018, 02:57:32 PM »
Are we still debating EA theory here? Are you debating on the side of supporting EA theory?
I'm not necessarily supporting anything, merely clarifying.

Can you draw a picture or describe what you mean in more detail?
Not immediately, but I can give it a shot when I have some time

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

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2018, 03:47:14 PM »
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.

But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

Unless, at those angles where that would happen is where the spotlight effect takes over.

Edit:

4 hot air balloons: A, B, C, and D

Which one(s) would see the sun in this graphic and, if seeing it, where would they perceive it to be?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 11:35:33 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2018, 01:20:24 AM »
And in the EA model, why does the sun appear to dip below the horizon?
Because the Earth eventually obstructs your view of the Sun.

But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

Unless, at those angles where that would happen is where the spotlight effect takes over.

Edit:

4 hot air balloons: A, B, C, and D

Which one(s) would see the sun in this graphic and, if seeing it, where would they perceive it to be?
It may help a bit if you don't look on the lines on the Electromagnetic Accelerator diagram as rays leaving the sun but from the other direction as the direction an observer would perceive the sun.
So, for your balloons, the directions have not yet been defined, but would, presumably,  match "reality".

From directly below the sun it appears directly overhead but from other locations the sun is not seen as being in its geometric location but lower.
Every point on the sun can still radiate light in all directions.

At least one flat earth video uses a bi-concave lens to achieve a somewhat similar effect, this one, I think:

Flat Earth Dr Zack's Angles of Deception, Fudmottin
The big problems with Fudmottin's lens are that it is effective only for a limited range and only if the sun does not move.
So little seems defined for the Electromagnetic Accelerator that there is no way to know if would be effective were the sun to move.
It's fair to say that, at this stage, it's only a hypothesis and not fully developed.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8738
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2018, 01:42:56 AM »
One thing I notice is being misinterpreted is scale. The image in the OP is at least 12,450 miles across (half the earth's circumference in RET)

Mt. Everest is 5.5 miles in altitude. That is a tiny bump.

International flights cruise at 5.6 miles in altitude. Another bump.

Hot air balloons only get to about 0.5 miles. An even smaller bump on the vast earth.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2018, 02:11:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### xasop

• 7299
• Professional computer somebody
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #74 on: June 10, 2018, 01:52:59 AM »

But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

What are you trying to say? There are very clearly no rays of light in that diagram which reach the observer. This is exactly the EA explanation for sunset.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #75 on: June 10, 2018, 05:14:34 AM »
What are you trying to say? There are very clearly no rays of light in that diagram which reach the observer. This is exactly the EA explanation for sunset.
SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #76 on: June 10, 2018, 02:02:51 PM »
It may help a bit if you don't look on the lines on the Electromagnetic Accelerator diagram as rays leaving the sun but from the other direction as the direction an observer would perceive the sun.
So, for your balloons, the directions have not yet been defined, but would, presumably,  match "reality".

From directly below the sun it appears directly overhead but from other locations the sun is not seen as being in its geometric location but lower.
Every point on the sun can still radiate light in all directions.

Is that what is meant by the diagram?

Because if those lines depict the only direction from which sunlight is perceived by a viewer, then the earth does become an “obstruction,” with a “shadow zone” occurring at the point where a line is tangent to earth.

I need to think this through and understand what such a sun would look like to a viewer. I don’t think it would be the same as sunset/rise caused by a rotating, spherical earth with no EA phenomena.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #77 on: June 10, 2018, 07:33:57 PM »

Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:

#### xasop

• 7299
• Professional computer somebody
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #78 on: June 10, 2018, 10:28:55 PM »
SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?

Can you please try to form meaningful sentences? It's hard to guess at what meaning your word soup might have been intended to convey.

There are only two rays in that diagram to which the Earth's surface is a tangent, and those are the sunrise and sunset points. It doesn't make any sense to describe these light rays as tangent to the Earth, because the rays are curved and the Earth is not. A tangent to a straight line is just that straight line itself.

Nearer to the Sun, the rays strike the Earth at an oblique angle, until you get directly under the Sun and the rays are perpendicular to the Earth.

Farther from the Sun than the sunrise/sunset point, there is no path a light ray can take to get from the Sun to the Earth's surface except by going through the Earth itself. Since the Earth is opaque, these paths cannot be taken.

All of the diagrams thus far posted illustrate this idea, even if the specific curvature depicted is inaccurate. I do not understand why it needs to be made so complicated.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #79 on: June 11, 2018, 12:24:29 AM »
Can you please try to form meaningful sentences? It's hard to guess at what meaning your word soup might have been intended to convey.
Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?

There are only two rays in that diagram to which the Earth's surface is a tangent, and those are the sunrise and sunset points.

Tangent means the ray isn't obstructed. Tangent means the ray continues on and continues to curve. Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?

It doesn't make any sense to describe these light rays as tangent to the Earth, because the rays are curved and the Earth is not. A tangent to a straight line is just that straight line itself.

Okay. So it's the flat earth that's tangent to those two rays, which are then not obstructed, by definition of what it means to be tangent.

Nearer to the Sun, the rays strike the Earth at an oblique angle, until you get directly under the Sun and the rays are perpendicular to the Earth. Farther from the Sun than the sunrise/sunset point, there is no path a light ray can take to get from the Sun to the Earth's surface except by going through the Earth itself. Since the Earth is opaque, these paths cannot be taken.

But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.

All of the diagrams thus far posted illustrate this idea, even if the specific curvature depicted is inaccurate. I do not understand why it needs to be made so complicated.

Because it's a weird concept. Does my diagram illustrate the concept too? (It's one of the "all" but maybe you meant all, excluding mine?
Are there more rays than that last ones that are tangent to the earth, marking as you say sunrise and sunset?
Are the more that are not tangent, that don't reach the earth's surface but keep curving upward?

Like in my diagram?

« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 12:26:54 AM by Bobby Shafto »