#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #100 on: June 12, 2018, 02:00:10 AM »
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?
That's what Pete was saying too but I don't agree... in EA, sunset is not occuring when light is obstructed by the earth, sunset is occuring when light is curved upwards away from the observer. There are many rays that do travel downwards and hit the earth, just like any observer at any time of the day will see those light rays bending down to them. We know the earth obstructs that light, because things on the earth are illuminated. But at sunset, those rays of light, according to EA, are curving so much as to be tangential to the surface, so the sun appears in the distance "level" with the horizon, and then after that time, because the light is now curving upwards away from the observer, then the sun is no longer visible. So it's not invisible because the light rays are being obstructed, it's invisible because the light rays are not reaching the observer.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Quote from: hexagon
Any observer of this light will consequently see the light approaching from below.
No, this is quite simply not the case.
How is this not the case? Can you please draw a diagram?
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Quote from: hexagon
Why is it impossible to see that light? Look at the sketch above, if you go to a place where the upward bound light is going, why is it not visible?
Because the light rays that are actually relevant are both more numerous and luminous.
So the relevant light rays, as you mentioned else where in the post, are the ones that actually strike your image plane e.g. your retina right? So a rough explanation of how a lens works: it "ignores" all other incedental light rays, and only the light rays hitting the lens from a limited number of angles will end up passing through and being focused on your retina.

So because we know that your eye (or camera) is selective of the light rays that it actually "sees", then we can be selective in the light rays we draw right? The light rays that people are drawing, travelling downwards and then upwards towards an observer, should be entirely relevant: we know that a light ray we draw in the direction the observer is looking, is going to be seen. And light rays at an angle can also be seen: we know our field of view is around 60 degrees yeah? Any light rays entering from within that field of view, and travelling in certain directions that the lens will "bend" and focus to a single point, will be seen.

Having said that I take Tom's point, and have mentioned that previously: the scales involved are huge, so our not-to-scale drawings can not really "prove" how much of the sun should be visible below the earth and at what distances/angles etc. I'm thinking without a mathematical formula for the curving then this would be impossible, but perhaps we have sufficient information to provide a "rough" idea within certain constraints?

For me though, I think it's more important that we all agree at least on what seems to be the central tenant of EA: "sunset occurs when light no longer reaches the observer, because it has been pulled upwards away from them"

Regardless of whether or not that effect would actually be seen, then it will to my mind also require the sun to "disapear" from the top down. The top is higher than the bottom (!), so the light rays from the top will curve upwards away from the viewer before the bottom light rays. Trying to bring an argument of "oh well there's heaps of different angles of light rays" is irrelevant: we KNOW that only certain rays will be focused by our eye, and we know that focus mechanism is the same for the top of the sun as the bottom of the sun, so all things being equal, the top would disappear first, the bottom would never "reach" the horizon (aside from any light curving back upwards to the observer). The sun would never appear "half set" over the horizon: if the bottom rays arn't visible, the top rays would not be visible either.
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

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #101 on: June 12, 2018, 03:28:19 AM »
Quote from: Bobby Shafto
Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?
That's what Pete was saying too but I don't agree... in EA, sunset is not occuring when light is obstructed by the earth, sunset is occuring when light is curved upwards away from the observer...

Really? I didn't pick up on that. Though they aren't in lockstep, I understood from all three (Tom, Pete & Parsifal) that it's the occlusion of the sun by the earth as the reason for the sun's appearance at sunrise and at sunset. It's not simply an artifact of curving light rays. The only reason for the curving light rays not reaching the observer is the obstruction of the earth along the path of the light. Without the earth surface (or its irregularities, natural and man-made) getting in the way, there would be no sunset; least not the type we see.

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #102 on: June 12, 2018, 05:53:59 AM »

So at every point up until sunset, the observer can see the sun because the rays are coming down and hitting their eye (and being curved along the way). It makes sense that the final point at which this happens, just before sunset, is when the light rays are bending at their maximum amount so as they still actually hit the observer, but they're so curved that the sun appears on the horizon. Once the observer/sun is past that distance, there are not any light rays reaching the observer. I mean sure, I guess technically you could say "the light rays infront of the observer are being obstructed by the earth" but that's not the reason the sun "disappears" at sun set, that just explains why you could travel closer to the sun and see the sun "reappear" (just like  you can on RE). On RE of course, the straight rays from the sun are blocked by the earth. In EA, the curved rays from the sun never reach the observer: the only rays that reach that distance will be above the observer.

In other words, just because the suns rays are hitting the ground "somewhere else in the world", we wouldn't really consider that as the reason for the disappearance of the sun. That's like saying, Mike has five apples: he gives two to Dave, and gives you none. The reason you don't have any apples is not because he gave some to Dave, it's because Mike didn't give you any damn apples
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

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #103 on: June 12, 2018, 06:54:51 AM »
I don't understand that.

What would make sense to me is:

Just for illustrative purposes, your observer here at, say 5pm would be perceiving the sun to be about 20 degrees above the horizon.
Around 6:15, this observer now sees the sun at almost 0 degrees and this is where he watches "sunset."
By 6:30, the sun is no longer visible because the rays that would be arriving at his vantage point from below 0 degrees are being obstructed by the earth.
So where you drew the observer, it would be approximately 9pm and that part of the world would be in shadow. None of the curving rays of the sun can reach that point on the earth's surface, so the sun is not visible. It "set" below horizontal 2-3 hours previously.

If you took away the earth completely and left the observer suspended in the same space relative to the sun, the sun (I imagine) would appear to be at some angle below horizontal because those rays that had previously been blocked by the sun would no longer be blocked. There would have been no sunset without the opaque earth.

That's how I understand how EAT would work. You've got to have an eclipsing object. The curving light from the sun doesn't, by itself, explain why the sun appears to "set." It only would explain why the elevation above the horizontal changes throughout the day. But the earth is needed to get in the way at the horizontal for there to be a transition of the sun from visible to not visible, or vice versa.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 06:56:42 AM by Bobby Shafto »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #104 on: June 12, 2018, 07:19:11 AM »
On a curved earth with straight sun rays, you can elevate out of the shadow of the earth's obstruction and see the sun again, until it sets again.
On a flat earth, with curved sun rays, you can do the same thing, like your observer here:

On a curved earth, gaining elevation only brings the sun back into view above the horizon. On a flat earth, where EA is responsible for the elevation of the sun, the curved rays are now on an upward slope, which means the sun would appear below the horizon to the observer, like a mirage.

I've never seen that happen. I've experienced dual or triple sunsets in hot air balloons and aircraft, and I can replicate it with a drone. (If I had a "space elevator" I could use that too.)

But except for the light bending of atmospheric temperature inversions or ducting, I've never seen light from the sun curving upward so that it appears that the sun is below the horizon, as if the sun was shining through the solid earth or nearer to me than the earth.

#### Parsifal

• 5898
• Professional computer somebody
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #105 on: June 12, 2018, 07:50:36 AM »
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #106 on: June 12, 2018, 08:07:05 AM »
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2907
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #107 on: June 12, 2018, 08:25:54 AM »
Is this "law" about light bending upwards in some way related to UA?
Because "up" only has meaning relative to your own orientation, on a globe earth "up" in Australia is opposite to "up" in the UK.
Is there any actual evidence for this effect, has it been shown experimentally?
Or is this just rationalisation to make things like sunset work on a flat earth?
(If so then I have to admit it's a much better explanation than "perspective")
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10579
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #108 on: June 12, 2018, 08:29:10 AM »
Bobby, are you somehow assuming that your vision would be "objectively straight", and that it wouldn't reflect the curvature of the light? You've completely lost me - you keep talking about things that you think should be happening, but there's no connection between what you're saying and EAT.

Because "up" only has meaning relative to your own orientation, on a globe earth "up" in Australia is opposite to "up" in the UK.
Right, but the Earth is flat, and "up" is largely universal.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 08:32:07 AM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #109 on: June 12, 2018, 08:45:19 AM »
Bobby, are you somehow assuming that your vision would be "objectively straight"...
I don't know what that means. Yes? I'm assuming if a curved ray intercepts our retina, we perceive the origin of that ray as being straight out from our retina.

I'm talking about something like this:

The blue dot is an observer and the red dot is an object being observed. The curved red solid line is a light ray travelling from the red dot to the blue one; the dotted red line and the blurred red dot indicate where the red dot would appear to be to the observer.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10579
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #110 on: June 12, 2018, 09:02:57 AM »
That explains a lot, although I have no idea how to explain why that's wrong, other than: You can't take a scenario in which all light curves and assume that you would still perceive it as if all light travelled in straight lines.

It is also important to note that you're still extremely exaggerating the scale of the effect you're proposing. If you adjusted for scale, you'd struggle to come up with anything remotely noticeable to the human eye.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2907
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #111 on: June 12, 2018, 09:12:27 AM »
I'm confused by that post, the two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
Obviously the scale is exaggerated but the diagram is basically correct isn't it? The photon may bend but the angle it hits your eye determines where it hits your retina and you see the object as though was coming from that direction, no? That's why you can see round corners with mirrors, it looks like the object is straight in front of you when in fact it is round the corner. Your eye can't tell the path the light has travelled to get to you.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10579
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #112 on: June 12, 2018, 09:20:54 AM »
Obviously the scale is exaggerated but the diagram is basically correct isn't it?
No.

the two paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
Eh. The two paragraphs address two different ways in which Bobby is wrong - one attacks his assumptions, the other his lack of internal consistency. The second paragraph is perhaps unnecessary, but you know I like to be thorough.

Your eye can't tell the path the light has travelled to get to you.
Indeed, but your interpretation of the world is centered entirely around everything else you can see - our perception of what is "straight" will necessary follow the curvature of the light. The projected light does not stop curving after it's reflected, which is why your reflection in the mirror does not appear to be (marginally) lower down than you are. In Bobby's outer-space diagram, the cosmonaut in question will see the Sun as located next to the Earth.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 09:24:07 AM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2907
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2018, 09:23:54 AM »
Are you able to fix the diagram? I'm not clear what you think is wrong with it.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10579
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #114 on: June 12, 2018, 09:25:36 AM »
Are you able to fix the diagram?
The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2907
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #115 on: June 12, 2018, 09:40:30 AM »
What? But how can it? The light has bent and because of that it hits your eye at a different angle and hits the retina in a different place.
That is how you work out where things are.
I thought this was an explanation for sunset and actually works quite well, if the sun is above the flat earth but the light is bent enough that it is coming at your horizontally then you'll see the sun at the horizon.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10579
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #116 on: June 12, 2018, 09:46:33 AM »
What? But how can it? The light has bent and because of that it hits your eye at a different angle and hits the retina in a different place.
Assuming that by "different angle" and "different place" you mean compared to a straight light model, sure. But the model remains internally consistent.

That is how you work out where things are.

I thought this was an explanation for sunset and actually works quite well, if the sun is above the flat earth but the light is bent enough that it is coming at your horizontally then you'll see the sun at the horizon.
Not quite. The horizon will simply appear to curve slightly, and the Sun will eventually dip behind it.

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2907
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #117 on: June 12, 2018, 09:56:33 AM »
That is how you work out where things are.
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10579
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #118 on: June 12, 2018, 09:57:55 AM »
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.
But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2907
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #119 on: June 12, 2018, 10:01:42 AM »
My point is Bobby's diagram is basically correct. Yes the scale is exaggerated but the light appears to be coming from an extension of the dotted line, so that is the apparent position of the sun from your point of view.
But that's completely not the case. Why would you expect your eye to interpret images as (effectively) curved downwards?

If the light is bent such that it comes at me in an upward direction then I see it below me.
Consider the sun reflected in a puddle of water. The sun looks like it's below me, in the puddle.
Obviously I know in real life it isn't below me but because the reflected light comes from that direction that is where it appears.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.