#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #140 on: June 12, 2018, 06:59:20 PM »
How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.

Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.
So sorry. Not sinking in.

Isn't the green line the horizon? Isn't the light ray's correspondence to the horizon the dotted line of apparent sun location relative to said horizon?  In the upper diagram, the sun appears above the horizon because the slope of the light ray is still downward. In the lower diagram, the slope of the light ray is upward, which puts the apparent sun location...where? Still above the horizon?
Oh, wait. The green line is the flat earth surface. The horizon "always rises to eye level" (or doesn't it?) so the horizon is above the green line and would be a dot, coming out of the page/screen if the blue dot is the observer.

Using the ENaG cross sectional diagram technique for horizon that rises to eye level:

#### la xasop

• Administrator
• 6449
• Professional computer somebody
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #141 on: June 12, 2018, 07:01:30 PM »
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.

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
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #142 on: June 12, 2018, 07:12:31 PM »
Maybe this will sink in the fifth [sic] time you read it.

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.

I get it. The horizon "dips" down lower than it actually is and does NOT appear at eye-level because...upward curving reflected light.

Mind blown.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 07:32:04 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #143 on: June 12, 2018, 07:19:40 PM »
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.

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.

I've been examining EA for 4 days now. Y'all have been looking at it for what? 5 years? 10 years?

Yo, Pete "the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is" Svarrior and Tom "Horizon is always at eye level" Bishop? Is what Parsifal saying sinking in yet?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12462
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #144 on: June 12, 2018, 07:45:08 PM »
I don't understand why you're trying to mix EAT with the theory it's directly opposing. Would you care to clarify what you're trying to achieve by this?

Also, while it's no secret that I disagree with Tom most of the time, Parsifal and I are saying exactly the same things, just approaching the subject from slightly different perspectives. Your confusion stems from the fact that you fail to adjust for *all* light curving.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<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
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #145 on: June 12, 2018, 08:11:34 PM »
I don't understand why you're trying to mix EAT with the theory it's directly opposing. Would you care to clarify what you're trying to achieve by this?
Why? I asked you to elaborate on your low-content "no" post and you ignored it.

But okay. I'm not trying to mix anything. I'm trying to integrate what I'm reading and hearing from all of you into something that makes sense. I've spent more time than I am comfortable admitting trying to verify that the horizon is always at eye-level. It's in your wiki. Not one flat earth proponent has stepped forward to say "yeah, I see your point." So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?

But now, I'm not supposed to consider it fundamental to flat earth when considering the plausibility of EA as an explanation for the appearance of the angle of the sun above the horizon?

Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too. (see what I did there?) He's mixing them, so take it up with him. Don't act condescendingly confused if I point out the disparity.

Also, while it's no secret that I disagree with Tom most of the time, Parsifal and I are saying exactly the same things, just approaching the subject from slightly different perspectives. Your confusion stems from the fact that you fail to adjust for *all* light curving.
You are, eh?
When I posted this, which was derivative of one Parsifal posted:

You, when asked how you would fix it, said "The dotted line would overlap the solid line, and the Sun would appear to be exactly where it is."

That's not even what Parsifal is saying. And when I said this diagram was being used to depict why the sun appears not "exactly where it is" but lower and lower on the horizon, you simply said, "no."  I don't even know if you know what you're agreeing with.

You've got both EAT and Horizon at Eye Level on your wiki. If they are contradictory, perhaps it would make sense to clarify that rather than present them as potentially compatible and get pissy when critics interpret it that way.

Now that I understand where Parsifal is coming from, and that he is refuting Tom Bishop, I can "fix" the diagram:

So now, the dotted lines are where we perceive the sun and the horizon, but they aren't really there. The sun is always high on its plane and the horizon doesn't actually dip. They just look the way they do because of curving light.

Yikes.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2018, 08:49:08 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #146 on: June 13, 2018, 12:12:08 AM »
Incidentally, what does flat earth say about the speed of light? Is it 300,000 km/s in a vacuum like mainstream science?
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
• 12462
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #147 on: June 13, 2018, 06:10:57 AM »
So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?
No.

Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too.
Tom is not an EAT proponent.

You are, eh?
Yes. You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<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
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #148 on: June 13, 2018, 06:23:35 AM »
So it seems rather axiomatic for flat earth that the horizon rises to eye level, does it not?
No.

Finally. A crack in the "Horizon is Always at Eye Level" claim from a flat earther.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #149 on: June 13, 2018, 06:26:09 AM »
Besides, that was for Tom who DOES try to have his Rowbotham perspective/eye-level horizon cake and EAT it too.
Tom is not an EAT proponent.
Maybe not before, but he's sure putting on a show of support on this and the other neighboring derailed topic.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #150 on: June 13, 2018, 06:28:16 AM »
You are, eh?
Yes. You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
No. You've been in contradiction to what Parsifal was saying and you don't even realize it.

(See? I can just gainsay as well as you.)

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #151 on: June 13, 2018, 06:34:11 AM »
\You can either draw just your dotted lines, or just the solid ones. Two ways to illustrate the same concept. Mixing the two together is madness. Presenting the two at the same time is just a bit redundant.
This was Parsifal's illustration.  Not mine.

Madness?

Redundant?

Do you not get what he's illustrating here? is he saying the sun appears exactly where it is?  (I've got Tom on the other topic now arguing for "bendy light" showing me "evidence" and YouTube video of a guy saying you can't know for sure where anything is because of it.)

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #152 on: June 13, 2018, 06:40:42 AM »
I'll tell you what. I don't care about "bendy light." I know that light bends and can be bent. But some ill-defined dark energy influencing "upward" curving light? I'm not buying it. It's an attempt to grasp onto something that can explain why a flat earth looks convex but isn't really. You want to put stock in it? Fine by me. But integrate it with the rest of your model. Don't be throwing whatever sounds "interesting" or counter-conventional against the wall and hope that something sticks. "Bendy light" contradicts many things that are otherwise laid out as FAQS by this site and its community. If bendy light has credibility then you better reexamine those FAQS and be less certain of them.

Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3904
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #153 on: June 13, 2018, 07:14:06 AM »
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.

It is, but when you have Wiki pages like this...

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Pete, can you not see how that would confuse a stupid person? There's no indication that this is an idea that only some FE proponents believe.
This is like trying to guess the number you're thinking of and being allowed to ask questions like "is it odd" or "is it less than 100" but getting confusing responses and then realising you're all thinking of different numbers.

It's increasingly clear that there is no coherent FE theory, model or society. It's just a bunch of people who all believe that the earth is flat (or maybe don't, really) and all come to their own different ways of explaining away the fact that observations demonstrate a globe.

All that said, EA works fairly well to explain the sun's movement, it makes sense in a way that "perspective" doesn't, at all.
"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

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12462
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #154 on: June 13, 2018, 07:16:30 AM »
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.
Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".

Maybe not before, but he's sure putting on a show of support on this and the other neighboring derailed topic.
I can't help you with that. I'm not Tom, and it doesn't appear that he's involved in this discussion. "B-but Tom said a thing!" is not an argument I'm really interested in.

(See? I can just gainsay as well as you.)
Except you're trying to tell me what I mean by my own words. I'm trying to tell you to stop telling us what we mean by our words. It's not so much "doing something as well as I am" as it is "doing the opposite of what I'm doing". Of course, you have every right to do so, but it won't advance this conversation, nor your understanding of the subject.

This was Parsifal's illustration.  Not mine.
Regardless of whether this is true, or who made the illustration, using it the way you're using it is utter madness. I don't understand your obsession with arguments from authority. "But Tom! But Parsifal!" No. We don't care. Discuss ideas, not individuals.

I'm glad that you eventually managed to produce a diagram that isn't wrong, and that this seems to have correlated with you becoming slightly less confused. That said, you'd have gotten there much sooner if you simply stopped trying to make things up and paid attention to our explanations.

Pete, can you not see how that would confuse a stupid person?
Yes, ample evidence of this has been provided.

There's no indication that this is an idea that only some FE proponents believe.
Do we really have to have another "Yes, the Wiki is a work in progress" conversation? We both know this. No need to turn every thread into a Wiki whinge.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<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 #155 on: June 13, 2018, 07:19:19 AM »
It would be a quite strong effect (a horizontal beam shoots 3000 miles up on a distance of around 6000 miles), nothing that could have been overlooked up to now.
That's perfectly consistent with your own model. A horizontal beam on a Round Earth would hypothetically "shoot up" 3000 miles away from the Earth's surface over the distance of 6000 miles (though, of course, the calculation will not be very useful at such extreme distances). Not only has this not been overlooked, it's already well known and well understood.

Beside that in both cases there is an increasing distance between the surface and the light beam, both ideas have nothing in common. On a round earth you need no "dark energy" to bend the light or the earth away...

Anyway, it is pretty easy to show that the two cases are indeed not equivalent. Take a 1m resonator with 1cm flat end mirrors and couple a laser beam into the resonator. After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator. In reality it simply does not, because no dark energy is accelerating the light upwards...

You think that is not true? If you ever go on vacation to Europe, I invite you to visit our lab and you can convince yourself how laser light propagates...

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12462
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #156 on: June 13, 2018, 07:27:09 AM »
On a round earth you need no "dark energy" to bend the light or the earth away...
Dark Energy bending the light or the Earth? What the hell?

After 1 second the light traveled about 300000km inside the resonator. If the EA would be true, the light would immediately leave the resonator.
This would happen, and does happen. If you want to adjust the experiment for your RE sensibilities, you simply need to adjust your mirrors so that they're precisely perpendicular to the Earth's sea "level", as opposed to parallel to one another.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 07:34:47 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3904
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #157 on: June 13, 2018, 07:52:48 AM »
Saying that "horizon is always at eye-level" is not axiomatic is a good start.
Allow me to help you with that one: as a rule of thumb, FE'ers reject the concept of "axioms".

Hmm. This is a strange thing to say. It's like rejecting the concept of truth.
I mean...you and Tom might disagree about whether the horizon rises to eye level but this is something you can test.
You both claim to value the importance of empirical evidence so, if you haven't, why not just do an experiment?
Bobby already has and has definitively shown that the horizon does not rise to eye level.
Once that has been established then it becomes "truth", an axiom on which you can build, no?

The horizon when you're at altitude is either below, at or above eye level. There are no other possibilities.
Sometimes you can't see the horizon but that's nit-picking, on a clear day you can do a measurement to determine which of the above 3 is the case.
You can do the measurement from different altitudes and look at whether the horizon's position changes.
You can repeat this experiment on different (clear) days to determine whether the results change.
Over time you build up a model of horizon height vs altitude and others can do their own experiments to verify that model and build confidence in it.
That model then becomes "the truth" until someone finds some problem with the model.

The truth about this cannot be relative it's an objective, measurable thing.
"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

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 12462
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #158 on: June 13, 2018, 07:55:33 AM »
Hmm. This is a strange thing to say. It's like rejecting the concept of truth.
Not quite. It's a functional epistemology, just one that's different from what you might find intuitive. It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.

Once that has been established then it becomes "truth", an axiom on which you can build, no?
No. And that goes for both sides. RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over. There are no axioms here - it's just that one side has the honesty to admit it
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3904
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #159 on: June 13, 2018, 08:42:42 AM »
It doesn't rely on whether something can be tested, but rather on whether or not something has been empirically testing, preferably personally.
But horizon dip has been empirically tested by Bobby - other experiments have been posted which show the same result.
If Tom rejects them he's free to repeat them himself. The fact he repeatedly refuses to or makes excuses tells me that he's not serious about finding truth and is content to worship at the alter of Rowbotham.

RE logicians will immediately reject anything we establish, and we'll be expected to defend it over and over.
Not if they actually tally with observations. I reject Tom's model of perspective and horizon dip because it is demonstrably wrong.
A sun thousands of miles above the earth cannot appear to set by "perspective".
I've said several times that the EA theory does work a lot better in this regard so I haven't rejected it out of hand.

BUT, I don't know of any force that would make light bend upwards so I've asked what evidence there is for that effect even existing. The Wiki page about it is pretty sketchy, there's an equation with no real explanation how it was derived. It contains the "Bishop constant", which is ironic if he rejects EA. I'm just not clear what evidence there is that this is a real effect.
You might claim that sunset IS that evidence but it feels like a fudge to explain RE observations on a flat earth.
"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