#### SiDawg

• 142
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #180 on: June 16, 2018, 04:27:51 AM »
Condescendingly asking me if I know what a frame of reference is doesn't help
I apologise. I never intentionally mean to offend or condescend, that's what makes this forum such a healthy place for debate (opposed to you tube etc). It's in everyone's interest to keep it civil and free of personal attacks.
- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?

I don't think the fact the earth is moving will affect that experiment. Constant velocity is not a force. Centrifugal force might? Maybe? Gravity might? They're all forces within the frame of reference, but they do have a direction to them, so yeah, sure, when you rotate 180 degrees, you might have changes to the mirrors from those forces.

And the same if the earth was flat right? I'm not sure if you agree with the theory the flat earth is accelerating through space at 9.8m/s, or you believe buoyancy causes gravity or what, but there are forces present on the flat earth too within the reference frame of the experiment, and if you rotate the experiment then the mirrors may be affected by those forces.

So if you ran this experiment two things are going to happen (when you rotate 180 degrees):
1) No change, the light just stays bouncing between the parallel plates
2) The light escapes from the parallel plates

What conclusions could you draw from those two results?
1) If no change, then either a) the experiment was calibrated for other forces present (gravity, buoyancy, ea etc),  and the forces of EA perfectly balanced with the new alignment of the mirrors or b) any other forces present had no effect on the experiment to being with, and EA is not present
2) If the light escapes, then either a) the experiment was calibrated for other forces present (gravity, buoyancy, ea etc) and we can't tell if light is now escaping because of EA or one of the other forces or b) any other force present had no effect on the experiment, and EA is the force pulling the light out of the experiment

Sound fair?
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 #181 on: June 16, 2018, 05:50:33 AM »
Sorry one more option, the act of rotating might throw the calibration mechanically, but you can just repeat the experiment to rule that out i.e. keep flipping 180 degrees, see if result is the same
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

• 2911
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #182 on: June 16, 2018, 08:20:08 AM »
- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?

I think I finally understood the argument. So the light reflects off mirror A and hits mirror B but in the time it takes the light to get from A to B the whole set up has rotated slightly so while A and B are still parallel B is now at a slightly different angle with respect to A than it was when the light left A.
Is that it?
Except I'm not sure that's how light works. Or anything works. But this is where my knowledge of physics is starting to run out.
By the same reasoning though, on a flat earth what is accelerating upwards the light would escape out of the bottom of the mirrors wouldn't it because in between the light leaving A and reaching B the earth has accelerated slightly so the mirrors are higher with respect to the beam of light.
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
• 10593
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #183 on: June 16, 2018, 09:10:33 AM »
My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?
If the experiment is to determine which model is correct, then we need to understand the expected outcome for each experiment. I've described why I don't believe the experiment will be precise in either model.

I don't think the fact the earth is moving will affect that experiment.
But if the Earth is round, then the velocity isn't constant, is it? Not if we're proposing atomic length scale of precision, for sure.

I think I finally understood the argument. [...]
You've got it. We're looking at a setup with an extreme amount of variables. The appeal of oversimplifying it is obvious, but it massively detracts from the experiment's conclusiveness. The "noise" from multiple factors (FE or RE) would be greater than the "signal" we're trying to measure. And both the effect and the noise are so insignificant that we'd normally not bother with them in experimental setups.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2018, 09:16:11 AM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #184 on: June 18, 2018, 03:10:05 PM »
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

I've come up with this from the above diagram to illustrate what I think EA explains about the phenomenological "setting" of a sun on a parallel plane above a flat earth:

The solid lines are actual paths. The dotted lines are the perceived paths. The times and scale are notional, just to illustrate the concept.

The sun is emanating all of these rays simultaneously, but to an observer on the surface of the earth, the sun's passage overhead alters which rays he can see, and thus where he (or she) perceives the sun to be.

A solar noon (actual noon in the cartoon), the vertical rays of the sun are "straight up" (realizing that there is a z-axis too, but keeping it in the x- and y-axes for simplification). As the sun moves westward, the angled sunlight that becomes more and more curved due this theoretical EA, and the angle at which they reach the observers eye becomes more and more declined. Because of EA, less angled or directed sunlight doesn't reach the observer, so all he sees is the result of whatever curved light is coincident with his increase distance from point of solar noon on the earth.

Until, the flat earth becomes tangent to the sun's rays, here depicted at 7PM observer's time. The sun's rays will be parallel to the earth's surface, which will start to obstruct the sun.

However, reflected light curves also, so everything will appear to "dip" to some degree, including the horizon. With EA, the horizon DOESN'T rise to the height of the eye. It "dips" just as it would with a curved earth (and no EA "bendy light.")  So this theoretical arrangement of sun/earth and "bendy" light could explain what we see at sunset (or sunrise) on a flat earth without resort to explanations of "perspective + convergence layer + magnifying lensing"

How's this look and sound?

#### iamcpc

• 756
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #185 on: June 18, 2018, 08:17:01 PM »
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.

I've come up with this from the above diagram to illustrate what I think EA explains about the phenomenological "setting" of a sun on a parallel plane above a flat earth:

The solid lines are actual paths. The dotted lines are the perceived paths. The times and scale are notional, just to illustrate the concept.

The sun is emanating all of these rays simultaneously, but to an observer on the surface of the earth, the sun's passage overhead alters which rays he can see, and thus where he (or she) perceives the sun to be.

A solar noon (actual noon in the cartoon), the vertical rays of the sun are "straight up" (realizing that there is a z-axis too, but keeping it in the x- and y-axes for simplification). As the sun moves westward, the angled sunlight that becomes more and more curved due this theoretical EA, and the angle at which they reach the observers eye becomes more and more declined. Because of EA, less angled or directed sunlight doesn't reach the observer, so all he sees is the result of whatever curved light is coincident with his increase distance from point of solar noon on the earth.

Until, the flat earth becomes tangent to the sun's rays, here depicted at 7PM observer's time. The sun's rays will be parallel to the earth's surface, which will start to obstruct the sun.

However, reflected light curves also, so everything will appear to "dip" to some degree, including the horizon. With EA, the horizon DOESN'T rise to the height of the eye. It "dips" just as it would with a curved earth (and no EA "bendy light.")  So this theoretical arrangement of sun/earth and "bendy" light could explain what we see at sunset (or sunrise) on a flat earth without resort to explanations of "perspective + convergence layer + magnifying lensing"

How's this look and sound?

This creates a problem with the flat earth models with the round earth "north pole" in the center. If the sun was passing over the round earth "equator" then people closer to the middle of the circle would see a round earth "south" sunset while the people closer to the edge of the circle would see a round earth "north" sunset. which i don't believe we see.

1. In these models there must also be some sort of bending (other than just down toward the surface) which pulls the light to make us perceive the sun always setting in the West.
2. there must be some difference between round earth west and flat earth west.
3. Both.

« Last Edit: June 18, 2018, 08:19:30 PM by iamcpc »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #186 on: June 18, 2018, 08:45:52 PM »
If you're depending on my diagrams and description of how I am interpreting how EA works, I'll hazard an answer. Just beware that we may be spiraling further away from the original theory by compounding errors in understanding.

If you're asking based on what parsifal or other proponents have presented rather than what I've come up with, better you get it from one of them.

But for me, I understand this to be a 3 dimensional effect, with the horizontal not only being in the x-axis but also the z-axis. The vertical, of course, is only y-axis. The acceleration occurs in y, but what has heretofore been referenced as dx, is is also dz for those N or S of the vertical plane of the sun. In a way, each observer has an x/y coordinate view of the sun, but for those N or S, that coordinate plane rotates as the sun passes from horizon to horizon, passing through solar noon at it's zenith, which won't be overhead but declined depending on far away from the sun's path across the earth he  or she is.

But EA would neverthless be impacted the perceived elevation of the sun. But that doesn't mean it would set/rise in the S or N. Only that it would contribute to the elevation of the sun which in round earth we attribute to the ecliptic and tilt of earth. Yes, on flat earth, the sun spirals from the Tropics, but that isn't enough to account for the declination of the sun throughout the day. The geometry doesn't work. But with EA, the light curving would explain why the sun transits the sky at lower elevations when viewed from the higher (or lower) latitudes.

Make sense? I'm typing extemporaneously and so my be "word souping."

Basically, I see EA serving as an explanation for why the surface of earth might be perceived as convex. But if it's light that is curving, accelerating upward, then that would make the convexity of earth an illusion, including not just sun rising and setting on the horizon of a flat earth, but also the declination that a rotating spherical earth exhibits during its orbit due to tilt.

The question I'm trying to resolve is how would you detect the difference?

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #187 on: June 18, 2018, 08:57:11 PM »
I haven't taken the time to work it out, but in my mind's eye, I see two potential differences between a round earth with straight light (no EA) and a flat earth with curved light (EA).

1. Based on experience and study of light "bending" due to atmospheric conditions, I feel like there would have to be some distortion of the sun if it was being seen via an upward curving light effect. In the vertical, it seems to me like the upper limb of the sun would be bending more than the lower limb, which would result in the sun becoming more "squashed" as it presented in lower elevations. In other words, the upper rim of the sun would "dip" more quickly than the lower rim, similar to what happens with refraction or miraging sometimes. I don't know. Perhaps the sun's diameter is too small such that the difference in the EA effect from one edge to the other wouldn't be manifest.

2. I asked a week or so ago when this topic was relatively new, what would be seen at increased elevations of observation? In real life, I know I can rise up and see a 2nd sunset. With EA, I don't think that is possible. Gaining altitude intercepts rays of the sun that are prone to make the sun look lower in the sky, so instead of bringing the sun back to a higher elevation, you'd actually be putting your eye in the path of sunlight that would make the sun appear to be lower. The answer may be that the 2nd sunset phenomenon occurs not because the sun is "raised" with added observer elevation but that climbing in observation altitude causes the apparent horizon to dip more, making the sun only appear to rise above it.

#### edby

• 1093
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #188 on: June 24, 2018, 10:37:13 AM »
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

On the assumption that light travels in (approximately) straight lines, this suggests the sun and moon are much farther away than FET suggests. E.g., see the diagram below. When an object (black horizontal line) is above the observer, it subtends an angle alpha, when farther away, a smaller angle beta.

That is RET.

On FET, we have to posit a curvature that makes the angle equal to alpha again.

Since this must be true for all observers at any point on the ground, or in the air, we now have a model for the propagation of light, given that we can predict the angular distance of A-B perceived at any point in space.

This would require some complex maths, however. Has any FE researcher attempted this?

Intuitively, the light from A’ must have a greater curvature than light coming from B’. Also, there will come a point where the object is sufficiently far away that light from A’ will be horizontal. At that point, the object will start to shrink in appearance.

What happens if the object at A’B’ moves to the right, so that the point now at A’ is at the point B’? We know the curvature is lower for light emitted at B’, so the curvature must continually be lessening. I am not sure it is possible mathematically to solve for all these conditions.

This also needs to be made experimentally consistent with terrestrial observations of light propagation, where light travels in (approximately) straight lines.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6747
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #189 on: July 06, 2018, 11:57:15 PM »
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

EA can just use the standard explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« Reply #190 on: July 07, 2018, 03:55:00 AM »
A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

EA can just use the standard explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Did you notice how blurry all these images of the expanded lights are?
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Streets_at_night.jpg (won't embed, sorry)
Have you ever seen anyone ever try those "explanations" with an exposure low enough that the light doesn't bloom out? You know... so you get a nice crisp photo of the light source like you do with a solar filter: