#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #160 on: June 13, 2018, 09:29:52 AM »

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.

That's a good point, will later go in my lab and rotate our lasers so that they are point upwards instead of horizontal... Still I don't really understand, why they are working fine in the current orientation and why the ceiling of our lab is not illuminated by laser light. I really have to think about it.

Anyway, currently we have an job opening for a position in laser optic experiments. If you're interested, I can send you the link for the application page. Seems we overlooked a lot of things up to know, maybe you can help us...

#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #161 on: June 14, 2018, 12:12:53 AM »
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.

Good point Hex! That would seem to be a pretty simple experiment. Pete I'm not sure if you don't understand what he said or if you're just trying to be difficult. Yes, if the mirrors weren't perfectly parallel the light would escape in the direction of the "larger gap". Yes if he adjusted for the curvature of the earth then the plates wouldn't be parallel... but why would he do that?? If he's testing for a flat earth, then perpendicular plates would be also be perfectly parallel yes? It's also pretty common practise in any scientific experiment to focus on certain elements and remove things that would otherwise affect the experiment... If the mirrors are perfectly parallel, and EA is true, then light should escape through the top. To be fair, to my knowledge, it's impossible to ensure the plates are perfectly parallel, but you would be able to account for that experimentally i.e. even if light was found to escape from them not being perfectly parallel, then you could just "spin" the experiment, and expect to see MORE light escaping e from the top 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

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10862
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #162 on: June 14, 2018, 05:43:32 AM »
SiDawg, you miss the point. The two setups are equivalent. They would appear the same, and be measurable to be the same. For hexagon's experiment to work, we'd have to align the mirrors so that they're physically parallel. Or, in RE terms, slightly out of alignment with one another.

The way you'd achieve this setup, as you point out, is by aligning the mirrors to match the expected result - if the laser beam is not escaping, then the mirrors are assumed parallel. This can easily be done regardless of EAT being there or not. And, of course, it uses an assumption to prove itself.

In the future, I'd appreciate if you could follow the rules of this forum and refrain from insulting others. I understood what he said, and if being accurate is "trying to be difficult", welp, get ready for some difficulty. Hexagon's experiment is pointless for the reasons presented.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 05:48:30 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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3113
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #163 on: June 14, 2018, 08:26:45 AM »
For hexagon's experiment to work, we'd have to align the mirrors so that they're physically parallel. Or, in RE terms, slightly out of alignment with one another.

This is a confusing sentence. There is no FE or RE version of parallel. Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
That's pretty much what parallel means.
BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
That sort of experiment is how you'd test whether there is any such force.
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.

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #164 on: June 14, 2018, 11:10:27 AM »
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.

Good point Hex! That would seem to be a pretty simple experiment. Pete I'm not sure if you don't understand what he said or if you're just trying to be difficult. Yes, if the mirrors weren't perfectly parallel the light would escape in the direction of the "larger gap". Yes if he adjusted for the curvature of the earth then the plates wouldn't be parallel... but why would he do that?? If he's testing for a flat earth, then perpendicular plates would be also be perfectly parallel yes? It's also pretty common practise in any scientific experiment to focus on certain elements and remove things that would otherwise affect the experiment... If the mirrors are perfectly parallel, and EA is true, then light should escape through the top. To be fair, to my knowledge, it's impossible to ensure the plates are perfectly parallel, but you would be able to account for that experimentally i.e. even if light was found to escape from them not being perfectly parallel, then you could just "spin" the experiment, and expect to see MORE light escaping e from the top right?

The point is, that you can just rotate the whole setup in any direction, without realigning the mirrors. If I would have aligned the mirrors in a way to compensate for the upward bending, I would have to realign the mirrors as soon if I change the orientation of the whole setup, because the upward acceleration would set a defined and absolute reference direction.

Maybe you know what a HeNe laser is. It's the most simple laser you can imagine. A glass tube with some HeNe gas mixture and two mirrors at each end. This are quite handy devices, like an over sized laser pointer. You can take them in your hand and point them in any direction and it continuously emits light. The alignment of the resonator simply doesn't care for the orientation, because the light inside the laser-resonator propagates in a straight line between the two end mirrors.

Or another example. Former colleagues of mine were working with so-called whispering gallery resonators. Basically this are tiny glass discs, where you couple a laser beam in and then it travels endlessly inside the disc around. Now you can argue, they were just fabricated in a way to compensate for the upward acceleration. But again, they would only work in one special orientation. If you would even slightly tilt them, the light would escape. But that simply never happened.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10862
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #165 on: June 14, 2018, 12:29:42 PM »
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.

BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.

Anyway, currently we have an job opening for a position in laser optic experiments. If you're interested, I can send you the link for the application page. Seems we overlooked a lot of things up to know, maybe you can help us...
Thank you for your offer, but I'm quite happy with my current position in academia, and am not looking to respecialise.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 12:32:44 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

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #166 on: June 14, 2018, 01:19:42 PM »
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.

BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
Do you have some other definition for parallel mirrors beyond "Two mirrors who are equidistant from each other at all points"? Or alternatively "A set of mirrors whereupon any two long edges are equidistant from each other at all points along the edge"? The first assumes two mirrors facing one another, the second assumes mirrors arranged in a circle for some reason and oriented such that, with a mirror in the shape of a rectangle, the short edges point 'down' and 'up' but their orientation is only relevant in regards to other mirrors in the circle. Meaning 'down' and 'up' do not need to refer to the direction of the Earth's surface.

#### hexagon

• 192
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #167 on: June 14, 2018, 02:34:30 PM »
Parallel is parallel. If the two mirrors are parallel then the light will bounce between them and stay at the same level.
I agree with this - that's why the experiment will be inconclusive.

BUT. If there is some upward force acting on light then you'd expect the light to rise even if the mirrors are parallel. If there isn't then you wouldn't.
Given your previous statement on how we establish that something is parallel, this is necessarily false. If you want to present an alternative definition of "parallel" (note that it cannot refer to optics or lines perpendicular to the Earth's surface), and if you can propose a setup in which this can be achieved, I might be interested.
Do you have some other definition for parallel mirrors beyond "Two mirrors who are equidistant from each other at all points"? Or alternatively "A set of mirrors whereupon any two long edges are equidistant from each other at all points along the edge"? The first assumes two mirrors facing one another, the second assumes mirrors arranged in a circle for some reason and oriented such that, with a mirror in the shape of a rectangle, the short edges point 'down' and 'up' but their orientation is only relevant in regards to other mirrors in the circle. Meaning 'down' and 'up' do not need to refer to the direction of the Earth's surface.

As I already explained in the post above. If the EA is true, the mirrors in a resonator that keep the light inside the resonator would not be physically parallel, they would be slightly tilted with respect to each other to compensate for the EA effect.

But if you have aligned this resonator once and you rotate now the whole setup let's say by 90° around it's optical axis, you would have to realign the two mirrors in order keep the light still inside the resonator. But that is not the case if e.g. anyone can observe who takes the above described HeNe laser or any equivalent resonator device.

But you can also think of other experiments. E.g. diffraction experiments with light or x-rays. If the target is symmetric in the horizontal and vertical direction, the diffraction pattern will have the same symmetry. But if EA is valid, the diffraction angles in the vertical direction will change with distance to the detector, the pattern will become asymmetric. Also something no one has ever observed.

Or take a laser beam with a slightly divergent nicely round TEM_00 mode and let it propagate over a long distance. The parts of the beam with different vertical divergence angles will be slightly differently affected by EA, but no the horizontal components. So the beam will be distorted from the initial round shape. Also never observed.

Or take the resonators in the two arms of the LIGO interferometer. The mirrors are 4km appart, if they would be tilted to compensate for the EA effect, you would directly see the tilt of the mirrors. Once heard a detailed talk from one of the people involved in the mounting of the mirrors. I'm pretty sure he would have noticed that.

I'm mean you have some many applications where it is extremely crucial to be sure about your alignment of your light, x-ray, Thz or microwave, etc. beams down to atomic length scales, and no one has ever noticed an asymmetry in the vertical direction on propagation of the beams...

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10862
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #168 on: June 14, 2018, 04:43:36 PM »
Well, yes. Given that the scenarios are analogous, you wouldn't notice a difference.

I'm mean you have some many applications where it is extremely crucial to be sure about your alignment of your light, x-ray, Thz or microwave, etc. beams down to atomic length scales, and no one has ever noticed an asymmetry in the vertical direction on propagation of the beams...
Interesting - given that the Round Earth is supposed to be in motion, by your own claim simply rotating the setup should completely break it. After all, if everything has to be calculated at atomic length scales then the very slight motion of the setup will be a very significant factor.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2018, 05:22:00 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 #169 on: June 15, 2018, 12:05:57 AM »
Do you know what a "frame of reference" is Pete?

It's actually a much simpler example for that experiment that Hex gave that I didn't quite understand at first. Makes perfect sense. You can align the two mirrors until light is seen to be perfectly captured between them in a straight line. If EA was true, then those mirrors would have to be slightly out of parallel to combat the "pull" of the light upwards i.e. the light would be pulled upwards at an angle, so once the light reflects at an angle, it continues to reflect and escape. The mirrors would have to be angled to ensure the light is bouncing back and forth in a "straight" line (would actually be a slight curved line, due to EA, but the angled mirrors would keep it bouncing back and forth to the same spot on each mirror). It's actually a beautiful way to ensure perfect calibration: it's calibrated when the light doesn't escape.

You then turn that 180 degrees... the angles of the mirrors should now be working WITH EA i.e. EA will now be pulling in the opposite direction, and the previously calibrated mirrors will ALSO be angling the light upwards... Any other force affecting the experiment: gravity, centrifugal force, bats, lepricorns, will be exactly the same from one orientation to the other: it's completely irrelevant to the experiment. It's exactly the same frame of reference. Those forces might've affected the orientation of the mirrors (in some minute way) but they would be affecting the 180 degree experiment in exactly the same way... the same frame of reference.

Plus I really don't understand how you seem to define "parallel" as being "perpendicular to the earth". Parallel has a meaning, and it's got nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Sure, when talking about building long bridges, then we can talk about the support columns not being parallel... this is not affecting the definition of parallel, it's just accepting something is NOT parallel... You don't say "those bridge supports are parallel" and expect someone to know that you mean "not really parallel, but adjusted for the curvature of the earth". Parallel is parallel. The laser experiment is very simple. Light is bouncing back and forth in a straight line, 300000km a second... If EA is present, you can think of the experiment as an "easy" way to measure it's affect on a really really really long ray of light.... much further than the furthest distance to the sun in the flat earth model. Hell if you wait around 8 minutes you can simulate a light ray travelling [from] the "RE Sun"
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 12:42:46 AM 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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3113
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #170 on: June 15, 2018, 08:37:39 AM »
What SiDawg said. I honestly can't understand what Pete is arguing here.
If EA is a thing then that would have to be accounted for in these experiments and rotating the apparatus would change the results if the force acts upwards with respect to the flat earth.
From what others are saying it doesn't have to be accounted for and rotating the apparatus doesn't affect the results.
Ergo, EA isn't a thing.

I'm not clear what us RETards are missing
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
• 10862
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #171 on: June 15, 2018, 12:47:28 PM »
Yes, I can see that my words were warped completely out of their original meaning. If you're not willing to argue this with a modicum of honesty, then please don't bother.

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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 3113
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #172 on: June 15, 2018, 01:26:02 PM »
I don't know if that was directed at me or SiDawg. I don't think anyone knows what you are trying to argue.
You are maddeningly vague, you're either a terrible communicator or you're being deliberately unclear.
Maybe a diagram would help:

So in the top diagram the two mirrors are parallel. Not "FE parallel" or "RE parallel", there aren't different parallels. Parallel is a definition. Two surfaces are parallel if the distance between them is equal at every corresponding point on the two surfaces.

The light hits one mirror perpendicular to its surface and reflects back to the other mirror and back and forth. Because the two mirrors are parallel the light goes back and forth at the same height. There is no force acting on it which makes it go up or down. If you rotated the apparatus 180 degrees it would look the same and behave the same. This is how we in the RE community believe light behaves. Ergo, we don't believe that there is evidence for EA. If there was a force acting on light which made it rise then the light would not stay at the same level. It would rise no matter how the apparatus is oriented.

If the mirrors are not quite perpendicular then the light will escape. In the middle diagram the mirrors are angled slightly upwards and the light escapes out the top. If the apparatus is rotated 180 degrees now then the behaviour will change, the light will now escape out the bottom. If EA existed then in the middle diagram the light would escape more quickly than when the apparatus is rotated. In the middle diagram the force ADDS to the effect of the angle of the mirrors, in the bottom one it DETRACTS from it. I've not heard of any experiment which shows this effect.

What have I got wrong?
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
• 10862
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #173 on: June 15, 2018, 01:38:14 PM »
There are a few things you need to consider. Mostly importantly, precision. Hexagon claims that this is down to atomic length scales - the mirrors are not just kinda-sorta parallel, they are parallel. But this raises an issue. If the Earth is round and spinning, then your setup is constantly rotating. Condescendingly asking me if I know what a frame of reference is doesn't help - the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change. So we face a conundrum: either our mirrors are actually parallel and the light escapes the system, or we calibrate our system by using your earlier proposal: if light doesn't escape the system, then we accept the mirrors to be parallel. In the former case, the system will never work, and in the latter case (aside from the fact that we've just engaged circular reasoning), rotating it by 180 degrees will mess us up regardless of EAT/RE/FE.

Given that optical resonators exist and function, I have to conclude that the extreme level of precision hexy is proposing is not actually required, or achievable for this particular experiment. The incredibly small effect of EAT will be well within the margin of error for the experimental setup.

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

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #174 on: June 15, 2018, 08:10:31 PM »
The incredibly small effect of EAT will be well within the margin of error for the experimental setup.
How can you call EA a 'small effect' though? It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me. Certainly something that should be noticeable even presuming an error margin of much less than Hexy is claiming I would think. Or don't you agree? If you don't, why not?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10862
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #175 on: June 15, 2018, 08:13:36 PM »
It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me.
What makes you think that this is the case?

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

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #176 on: June 15, 2018, 08:41:36 PM »
It's enough of an effect that light is bent such that light that should be coming in around 20+ degrees from the horizontal is coming in horizontally, and it does this over a distance that the light travels in less than a second. That seems a pretty potent effect to me.
What makes you think that this is the case?
Oh right, you believe the Sun is still significant distance away or some such don't you? As EA would also prevent accurate height estimates. Actually I suppose that means we would have no real idea how far away it is wouldn't it? I feel we should be able to get an estimate, but I don't know the math well enough to be sure how to do it.

#### iamcpc

• 786
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #177 on: June 15, 2018, 08:59:21 PM »
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.

The problem lies in this we are thinking about this as if each line from the sun is representing a stream of photons or a lazer like the video attached.

The problem with testing this is that sun does not emit light like the video shown below in one concentrated beam going in one direction. The sun emits light more like a light bulb.

If someone wanted to see how this affects perception of the viewer you would only need to put a camera at the other side of the tank.

« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 09:15:16 PM by iamcpc »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #178 on: June 15, 2018, 10:22:20 PM »
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.

The problem lies in this we are thinking about this as if each line from the sun is representing a stream of photons or a lazer like the video attached.

The problem with testing this is that sun does not emit light like the video shown below in one concentrated beam going in one direction. The sun emits light more like a light bulb.
I'm trying not to think of it like a laser. To understand what it would look like if seeing the light from the sun after it has curved upward, I use the analogy of an inferior mirage. In that case, you may still be seeing the source of light via a direct path, but you are also seeing light from a curved path that was directed downward and then, due to atmospheric effects, curves upward to the eye. As a result, you see the object(s) via their direct light path, but also see the mirage that is below the horizon.

My stand is (was) that, in the case of the sun, there is no direct path in EA at such an oblique angle. Instead, all you may intercept is the "mirage"-like upward curving light, which -- like a mirage -- presents the object to the view below the horizon.

But that is if only the un-reflected light of the sun is curved. If all reflected light curves too, then anything illuminated will also be displaced in the y-axis, including the surface of the earth and, ergo, the horizon. So even though the sun light might be upward curving, so is the light from the horizon. So, in effect, EA replaces the curve of the earth's surface with curved light, and that would allow an explanation for why a flat earth might suggest curvature, contrary to the more standard FE argument that there is no appearance of curvature and that arguments for such appearance are misinterpreting the observations.

I shake my head at the perspective and "convergence zone" and "obscuring waves" arguments for things like ships or skylines or celestial objects disappearing beyond the horizon. But this curved light theory is intriguing and challenging (if looking solely at earth-bound phenomenon and excluding beyond-earth evidence as suspect). It strikes me as a sort of similar to the luminiferous aether, as in something that is postulated to exist but to explain natural phenomenon, but not (yet) detectable. I suppose dark energy fits into that sort of category too.

Something I've mulling over is, because the sun isn't a point source of light, wouldn't the appearance of the sun become distorted the greater the angle away from vertical? Again, looking at the sun through atmospheric effects that are light "bendy," the sun does get squashed, terraced, mirrored, stretched, etc. when at a low angle of incidence to the atmosphere. If UA was curving the light of the sun, at close to horizontal to the x-axis, wouldn't the difference between the middle and its edges be bending differently, causing the sun to elongate or squish? Not just within a few degrees of the horizon, but from 10 or 20 degrees elevation, I'd think we'd start seeing something less than spherical.

No?

#### iamcpc

• 786
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #179 on: June 16, 2018, 01:57:10 AM »

I'm trying not to think of it like a laser. To understand what it would look like if seeing the light from the sun after it has curved upward, I use the analogy of an inferior mirage. In that case, you may still be seeing the source of light via a direct path, but you are also seeing light from a curved path that was directed downward and then, due to atmospheric effects, curves upward to the eye. As a result, you see the object(s) via their direct light path, but also see the mirage that is below the horizon.

My stand is (was) that, in the case of the sun, there is no direct path in EA at such an oblique angle. Instead, all you may intercept is the "mirage"-like upward curving light, which -- like a mirage -- presents the object to the view below the horizon.

But that is if only the un-reflected light of the sun is curved. If all reflected light curves too, then anything illuminated will also be displaced in the y-axis, including the surface of the earth and, ergo, the horizon. So even though the sun light might be upward curving, so is the light from the horizon. So, in effect, EA replaces the curve of the earth's surface with curved light, and that would allow an explanation for why a flat earth might suggest curvature, contrary to the more standard FE argument that there is no appearance of curvature and that arguments for such appearance are misinterpreting the observations.

I shake my head at the perspective and "convergence zone" and "obscuring waves" arguments for things like ships or skylines or celestial objects disappearing beyond the horizon. But this curved light theory is intriguing and challenging (if looking solely at earth-bound phenomenon and excluding beyond-earth evidence as suspect). It strikes me as a sort of similar to the luminiferous aether, as in something that is postulated to exist but to explain natural phenomenon, but not (yet) detectable. I suppose dark energy fits into that sort of category too.

Something I've mulling over is, because the sun isn't a point source of light, wouldn't the appearance of the sun become distorted the greater the angle away from vertical? Again, looking at the sun through atmospheric effects that are light "bendy," the sun does get squashed, terraced, mirrored, stretched, etc. when at a low angle of incidence to the atmosphere. If UA was curving the light of the sun, at close to horizontal to the x-axis, wouldn't the difference between the middle and its edges be bending differently, causing the sun to elongate or squish? Not just within a few degrees of the horizon, but from 10 or 20 degrees elevation, I'd think we'd start seeing something less than spherical.

No?

here's an interesting video.

Seems to me like you need some sugar water, a small light bulb, a laser pointer, maybe a ruler or some sort of measurment markings too and a camera to easily test this.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2018, 03:04:44 AM by iamcpc »