Flat Earth Society: Bendy Light

imagesizer (1)


     Yes it’s another Flat Earth Debunking! But be warned my fellow Viners, Bloggers, and readers, this may unbend your mind from the twisted two dimensional prisms of the Flat-earther’s neural projections of reality. And as we ride the electromagnetic waves and tune in to the visible spectrum,  you will be happy to know that I have structured this to be as educational as possible while keeping it as simple as I could.  Now besides Flat-earthers telling me that looking at the moon directly will result in cancer because the moon’s light is dangerous, I’ve been presented with some strange theory they call “Bendy Light” to explain away the motion of the Sun across the sky to the problem of the sinking ship over the horizon.

     So what is this “BENDY LIGHT”!..??  What exactly are they talking about?  Bendy light kind of makes us all think of light wrapping itself in a pretzel. Perhaps sort of like optical knots depicted in the image above, and featured in how physicists managed to make light look like some sort of new Pink Floyd Album cover  :


But according to the Flat Earth Society, Light doesn’t bend according to the physics of the real world we know.  They would argue light bends equally along all wavelengths and frequencies due electromagnetic acceleration from Dark Energy. Fancy use of scientific terminology, but I assure you that they had their magical pseudoscience thinking helmets on when conjuring all this up. Heck,  Marvin the Martian comes to mind as the Super Galactic Space Modulator is just as much of a mouthful of entertaining cartoon fun nonsense as that is. And thus so is the term “EAT” they use.., or what is also known as the “Electromagnetic Accelerator theory”.  It’s also further referred to the “Bendy light theory” by some of them. This is indeed as confusing as it sounds, but I will attempt to show you why this is not possible and how it’s just as silly as the defied physics in the cartoons we watched as kids.. Though secretly I still watch all my favorite 80’s cartoons as I couldn’t just let the kid in me get vaporized by the laser beam of adulthood.  However, I don’t mix fantasy for reality, much-less intentionally profess it to sell a bit of ignorance in order to develop some fringe cult. Thus with my adult hat on, I will focus on the properties of light, Snell’s law, the sinking ship, sunsets, and how light propagates over a surface area in hopes I can help put a clog in the drain in which our education system seems to be draining into. Therefore in regards to this, The flat Earth Society is essentially telling us that what we see is an illusion, or that a ship going over the horizon is an optical illusion. Sounds reasonable and even catchy for the unsuspecting targets they are phishing for. This is where science literacy is important to our education system, and why they target the ignorant with the peddling of vast amounts of pseudoscience, this in which is no more coherent in the scientific arena than the 4 corner time cube. If your mind isn’t bending like a cracked out contortionist by now, all I can offer is a great mountain pile of Kudos for your exceptional achievement in keeping your thoughts straight.  As for the rest of us,  the horror movie scanners comes to mind, and even as of right now my own mind is in twisted double knots. Thus they say, in the mystic cloud of woeful ignorance and confusion they create, they will lay claim that Bendy light proves the Earth is flat! It’s like pulling a rabbit out of a hat among a wowed captive audience. And for any critical thinker or scientist, this would purely be no more than entertaining vs being academically taken seriously.

Now the question I see being asked here is in how do we prove Bendy Light Theory is wrong? Well, it’s actually not that difficult, but to do so we must first get a basic understanding of light. So lets tune our frequencies into the spectrum of light and explore the world of color we often never stop to admire, and explore the deep hidden world of those reds, blues, and greens in our seemingly RGB world! And for this I start with asking what light frequencies are, and how they relate to the wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. I start here because these first two questions will in their own right give you the tools you need to debunk the theory in question. So to begin here with the first question,  what are light frequencies?:


Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time. It is also referred to as temporal frequency. The period is the duration of one cycle in a repeating event, so the period is the reciprocal of the frequency

Main articles: Light and Electromagnetic radiation

Visible light is an electromagnetic wave, consisting of oscillating electric and magnetic fieldstraveling through space. The frequency of the wave determines its color: 4×1014 Hz is red light, 8×1014 Hz is violet light, and between these (in the range 4-8×1014 Hz) are all the other colors of the rainbow. An electromagnetic wave can have a frequency less than 4×1014 Hz, but it will be invisible to the human eye; such waves are called infrared (IR) radiation. At even lower frequency, the wave is called a microwave, and at still lower frequencies it is called a radio wave. Likewise, an electromagnetic wave can have a frequency higher than 8×1014 Hz, but it will be invisible to the human eye; such waves are called ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Even higher-frequency waves are called X-rays, and higher still are gamma rays.

In Laymen terms, this is the number of waves in per unit of time. So imagine waves coming into shore and the number of them hitting the beach every second as you time and measure them. The statistical number average of waves hitting the shore each second is the frequency of the waves hitting the shore. The difference of the frequencies of waves hitting the shore will leave different patterns on the beach, and these patterns represent color in this analogy. The colors as patterns are specific to certain frequencies and wavelengths.   Thus the color you see off an object is the frequency it reflects off an object vs the ones the object absorbs. Thus we see red trucks as red because they reflect a electromagnetic wave frequency of 4×1014 Hz. Though trucks are awesome in red,  what are these waves I speak of? And what do waves have to do with light and it’s frequencies? Well it’s like comparing rough seas to calm waters .. Here red would represent calm waters to where the waves are longer and less in frequency than the latter blue end of the spectrum. Here the blue end of the spectrum is where we have lots of shorter wavelengths, and more waves in higher frequency. Thus this may help in understanding the following definition of the wavelength of light:


In physics, the wavelength of a sinusoidal wave is the spatial period of the wave – the distance over which the wave’s shape repeats.[1] It is usually determined by considering the distance between consecutive corresponding points of the same phase, such as crests, troughs, or zero crossings, and is a characteristic of both traveling waves and standing waves, as well as other spatial wave patterns.[2][3] Wavelength is commonly designated by the Greek letter lambda (λ). The concept can also be applied to periodic waves of non-sinusoidal shape.[1][4] The termwavelength is also sometimes applied to modulated waves, and to the sinusoidal envelopes of modulated waves or waves formed by interference of several sinusoids.[5]

Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency: waves with higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths, and lower frequencies have longer wavelengths.[6]

Here we have the length between each wave, and the longer the wavelength, the lower the frequency (number) of waves per unit of time. This is the red end of the spectrum. And as you would suspect, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency of waves to which is towards the blue end of the spectrum. Thus below I have provided a reference to the spectrum chart in order to shed some visual light in the understanding of wavelengths and frequencies in relation to the electromagnetic spectrum:

As we reference the above chart, we can see, as I have stated prior, red light has a very long wavelength and a very low frequency compared to the blue and ultraviolet ends of the spectrum. This is very important to understand as we progress to understand why light does not, and will not bend equally across all wavelengths and frequencies as argued by the Flat-earthers in their Bendy light theory. These frequencies and wavelengths effect how they propagate through various mediums such as our atmosphere.  So with that in thought, lets move on to light refraction and how these wavelengths and frequencies relate to the refraction of light:


Refraction Is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its speed.Refraction is described by Snell’s law, which states that the angle of incidenceθ1 is related to the angle of refraction θ2 by where v1 and v2 are the wave velocities in the respective media, and n1 and n2the refractive indices. In general, the incident wave is partially refracted and partially reflected; the details of this behavior are described by the Fresnel equations.

Now remembering what we had in thought above, it’s important to note that each wavelength and frequency will slightly differ in their change of direction and speed as they propagate through various mediums. Essentially higher frequencies will take longer to propagate through a medium as well as be more apt to change in direction as they propagate through a medium than will longer wavelengths and frequencies. This is dependent on the fraction index, or the density of the medium for in which the light is propagating through. This includes mediums such as water, or a prism…, and you can think of this in terms of how a straight route from point A to point B is faster than a route that has a lot of turns and bends in it. So when blue light propagates through a medium it will take longer to propagate through said medium while at the same time being more subject to a medium’s effect on the direction of it’s propagation. Hence blue light will bend more through a medium and take longer to propagate through a medium than red light. But for a visual the example soon to follow below, we will use a prism. But before we do, let’s review what Refraction indexes are:


The refractive index or index of refraction of a substance is a measure of the speed of light in that substance. It is expressed as a ratio of the speed of light in vacuum relative to that in the considered medium.[note 1] The velocity at which light travels in vacuum is a physical constant, and the fastest speed at which energy or information can be transferred. However, light travels slower through any given material, or medium, that is not a vacuum. (See: light in a medium).  A simple mathematical description of the refractive index is as follows:

n = speed of light in a vacuum / speed of light in medium

For example, the refractive index of water is 1.33, meaning that light travels 1.33 times faster in a vacuum than it does in water.

As light exits a medium, such as air, water, or glass, it may also change its propagation direction in proportion to the refractive index (see Snell’s law). By measuring the angle of incidence and angle of refraction of the light beam, the refractive index n can be determined. Refractive index of materials varies with the frequency of radiated light. This results in a slightly different refractive index for each color

Now with this bit of hard earned knowledge, we can come to understand in more detail as to why light travels slower through various mediums such as water, our atmosphere, or a prism when compared to a vacuum. The refraction index will determine how much any particular wavelength will bend as it propagates through a medium due to the density and properties of the medium. This can cause light to scatter, or cause separation of the spectrum through a prism. This is how light bends! And the higher the refraction index, the more bend, and the more differences in the bend between each color of the spectrum. This however will not effect the frequency of any given wavelength since they are two sides of the same coin, or in relation to each other. Thus as noted the color red will bend less than the color blue because the longer wavelengths and lower frequencies have a higher velocity through various mediums, and are thus less effected by the refraction index of a medium  than colors like blue to which have a much shorter wavelength and higher frequency.  Think of it as a higher frequency having more drag when propagating through a medium like a c-130 does vs your favorite Jet fighter.  So let’s explore Light dispersion to better understand why this is:


To animate, click on image.SOURCE

In optics, dispersion is the phenomenon in which the phase velocity of a wave depends on its frequency,[1] or alternatively when the group velocitydepends on the frequency. Media having such a property are termed dispersive media. Dispersion is sometimes calledchromatic dispersion to emphasize its wavelength-dependent nature, or group-velocity dispersion (GVD) to emphasize the role of the group velocity.

The most familiar example of dispersion is a rainbow, in which dispersion causes the spatial separation of a white light into components of different wavelengths(different colors).

So this brings us to conclude our first piece of evidence in debunking EA theory that states to claim that all light frequencies and wavelengths all bend equally, and with equal velocity. They obviously do not, and shown that they do not as we had above come to see that Light has a spectrum of colors that all have different frequencies and wavelengths, for which will effect how they propagate through various mediums with different refraction indexes (densities). Thus we can, with empirical demonstrations, see why you get the color spectrum dispersion after passing white light through a prism. Therefore if their theory were to hold true, if the white light and all its frequencies and wavelengths bent equally as EAT predicts, its dispersion would be white light, and we wouldn’t have rainbows to admire in the sky.  Thus under EAT, there would be no dispersion of the color spectrum regardless of the optical density of the prism, or any medium for that matter. So what we see in real life is that light frequencies and wavelengths do not bend equally, or at equal velocity. These same principles apply to other things like radio waves, and even sound waves because they to do not bend equally between all their frequencies and wavelengths either. So if the prism example isn’t enough to unbend your mind from their twisted 2D dimensional view of Earth, let me provide you with another example, and for this I will address Green flashes as our second piece of evidence:

The Green Flash Example:

Have you ever seen the green flash?
JAN 23 2007

     In this example I will discuss how air density, and the curvature of the Earth effect light propagation. So in dealing with Green Flashes, light will move slower in the denser air to which is lower to the ground than in the thinner air at the higher altitudes of the atmosphere. What this means is that the suns light will follow paths that curve or bend slightly in the same direction as the curvature of the Earth as the sun sets on the Horizon. The Green flash is enhanced by the density gradient in the atmosphere to which increases refraction. If the Earth was flat, or if the Sun was a “flat spot light disk” as the Flat Earther’s believe, these green flashes would never occur as they are entirely dependent of the curvature of the Earth, frequencies and wavelengths bending unequally, the density gradient between the higher and lower Atmosphere, and a Spherical Sun to which is not a spot light. Thus as the Sun begins to descend below the physical obstruction of the horizon, The curvature of the Earth physically obstructs the red light leaving the blue/ green light at the upper region of the setting sun. Here blue is almost always scattered light leaving a green flash.


We can also go into many other types of optical phenomenon that is consistent with the RE model:


So now we have debunked this part of the Bendy light theory, what about their claim that it also explains the Sinking Ship problem? Well to be honest, I almost feel I am going to need to toss their Captain a life vest after I am done here as I now imagine myself in a German U-Boat ready to torpedo their already sinking ship.


Nooo not literal sinking ships, I am rather being rather metaphoric. The sinking ship, as I am certain most of you know, is when a ship goes over the horizon and appears to sink due to the curvature of the Earth. And as we have come to know, The Flat-earth Society believes their idea of bending light will explain the sinking ship problem as an optical illusion. This also, like before, may seem like a great argument if taken at face value, perhaps even believable to those not yet equipped with the scientific education to know it’s pseudoscience.  This of course is no fault of their own as many of those targeted are children, and of course those who are yet very impressionable as well. The peddling of such ignorance poses some serious issues, and damages the health and future of our society as a whole. I have a serious enough problem with this that I have taken much of my own time to pick these sort of claims apart and turn them into something educational in hopes of helping turn the tide to a brighter future for the generations to come. The less ignorance in this world, the better off it will be for everyone. So in light of this at the waters edge, the horizon, we end up with the following problem of how do two observers over distance not be able to see each other on a flat plane?:

X (axis) <____you-> 0____________O <- me____> X

Well according to Flat Earthers, the only way is to bend light between the two observers to where you have a wave that rises in between them in order to obstruct direct line of sight. You can imagine this as the illusion of the ground itself rising between the two observers in order to obstruct their view from seeing each other. Here the magnitude of the illusion is proportional to their distance apart. As in the nearer you are to another observer, the lesser the effect or magnitude of the bend. The greater the distance the greater the effect, or magnitude of the bend.

Essentially they are claiming light bends to where the observer “(you)”, sits in a parabolic bowl relative to another observer “(me)” over distance. This is where the ground appears to rise between me and you as distance increases, or fall as distance decreases. Thus I, or you would look around and feel like we were at the bottom of a bowl when looking at the distant horizon. They somehow believe this solves the sinking ship problem.. However, it has it’s own unsaid problem,  so lets visualize this, and begin with the diagrams below to give us the dimensions we will be working with here:


This is a 3 dimensional space to where you or I would be sitting on the X axis, and the center point zero is relative as a representative of each observer on the axis, as well as the vertex position (V) within a parabolic bowl as shown below:

parabolic bowl

For EAT to be a real optical phenomenon, it will need a Parabolic bowl to create a sinking ship, the illusion of Earth’s Curvature, and sunsets. It must create a parabola over a flat surface area in order to achieve this.  However the most interesting thing about this is that the major flaw is not the impossibility of such an optical illusion on an Oblate spherical Earth, or on a Flat Earth with a flat surface area.  it’s the illusion itself that tells us it doesn’t make any sense in regards to real world observations and measurements. Hence if you notice, the observer would have to look UP to see the horizon! And this is because the focal point must be over the observers line of sight in order to obstruct its view from another observer that is supposed to be over the horizon line, or dropping below the horizon line to give you that illusion of a sinking ship. So that brings us back to the problem above..:

X (axis) <_____— 0______________O ______> X

How do these two observers over a flat plane not see each other?  And what’s the difference between our RE (Real Earth) and FE (Flat Earth) in the observation of a sinking ship, or setting sun below the horizon? Well remember the FE observer needs to look up to see the horizon, and thus so I have made a nice little diagram to demonstrate this glaring problem and massive hole in their sinking ship theory, and in accordance to their Bendy Light theory:

horizonTo see full size, click on the imageSOURCE

So what we can see here is that the RE observer (on the right) would not have to look up to see the horizon, a sinking ship, or a setting sun because the RE observer’s line of sight, standing angle (z-axis), and position match where the RE observer would view the Horizon from eye level. In the FE model, the observer (on the left) is placed in a parabola to where the horizon would be above eye level. This would be the same effect regardless if the FE observer was looking in the opposite direction towards some other object or observer over the horizon line.  Here the FE observers line of sight does not match where the horizon would be in the real world in order to properly show the curvature of the Earth on the X , Y, and Z axis. In order to create a sinking ship illusion, the horizon between both observers would have to rise above eye level in order to create that illusion for the FE observer. So the focal point for an FE observer would be considerably higher than it would be for an RE observer! Thus this is why RE is correct because the horizon is viewed near or just below Eye level, and not above the eye level!


   This Bendy light theory neither shines or floats upon the waves at the waters edge, and nor below or above the distant horizon. It’s pseudoscience made up in an arm chair by some crank peddling ignorance as his wares.  This is often what such cults do, and what Creationists in particular like to peddle. All of them have a need to breed and spread ignorance because they survive on it. They can not survive without it, or gain power, wealth, or control of you without it.  Be wary of those who seek your membership, lives, money, obedience, freedoms, land, property, or devout loyalty through taking advantage of your vulnerabilities. They never have your best interests in mind. So I hope you enjoyed this hopefully educational look into heart of the Flat-Earth Society’s bendy light theory,  and walk out with more than you came in with. 🙂



2 responses to “Flat Earth Society: Bendy Light

  1. Still you havent disproved the flat earth theory. As for light bending and green effect, same results apply in flat earth theory when Sun moves beyond the horizon line due to law of perspective

    As for the German uboat argument, i refute it so easily by saying you already look upwards but you are not even aware of it. To understand it, youtube “vsauce flat earth” and move to 1.00

    Keep trying mate, i sincerely hope you succeed, as i am trying too to do the same for a few days now but havent accomplished it.
    Also read this


    • Umm no… The law of perspective doesn’t invalidate this article.., and nor would this debunking be refuted regarding perspective when it directly addresses perspective.. I am not entirely sure you even understand anything discussed in this article. Basically the empirical evidence against a flat Earth is so great, there really is no way to honestly support it as it would require ignoring the body of evidence contrary to it’s claim. It sadly rests on pseudo-science. Hence, they would need to demonstrate how light bends equally at all wavelengths and frequencies to even begin to support their bendy light theory to which claims it does.. Anyone with a prism can demonstrate that it does not.., and that is just one part of this article that debunks their claim of Bendy Light.

      Your first video also does not address the issue discussed here.. Now if I wanted to debunk the flat disk as described in the Vsauce video, I only require non-local gravimeter data and measurements. But they essentially refuted Flat Earth all on their own..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s