The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Sefnug on January 14, 2010, 04:29:50 PM
-
Really, bendy light? Is bendy even a word? You FE'rs are pretty smart shouldn't you think of a more scientific name?
*EDIT*
Huh seems bendy IS a word, but still.
-
Aha ha is a scientific term that I would say is a goofy name for a species. I think the ironic part is that scientists named a species on a nonexistant country Aha ha as if to irritate FE ers.
So what is in a name? Nothing really. Some can just sound much more silly than others.
-
"Bendy Light" is an informal name used by RE'ers. The formal name of the theory is "Electromagnetic Acceleration".
-
"The Big Bang"
"Dark matter"
"Quark"
"The strong force"
"The weak force"
"Gluon"
It all sounds like something a drug-induced astrologer/hippie would make up.
-
"The Big Bang"
"Dark matter"
"Quark"
"The strong force"
"The weak force"
"Gluon"
It all sounds like something a drug-induced astrologer/hippie would make up.
I also like 'cosmological constant', 'graviton' and 'string theory'.
-
"The Big Bang"
"Dark matter"
"Quark"
"The strong force"
"The weak force"
"Gluon"
It all sounds like something a drug-induced astrologer/hippie would make up.
I also like 'cosmological constant', 'graviton' and 'string theory'.
How about 'boson'? If that isn't a silly name for a particle, I don't know what is.
-
Dark Matter sounds more of a science fiction novel, Black Hole is simple White hole as well, Wormhole...Many other names too.
-
Aha ha is a scientific term that I would say is a goofy name for a species. I think the ironic part is that scientists named a species on a nonexistant country Aha ha as if to irritate FE ers.
So what is in a name? Nothing really. Some can just sound much more silly than others.
So Australia doesn't exist?
-
Aha ha is a scientific term that I would say is a goofy name for a species. I think the ironic part is that scientists named a species on a nonexistant country Aha ha as if to irritate FE ers.
So what is in a name? Nothing really. Some can just sound much more silly than others.
So Australia doesn't exist?
They really dont think Australia doesnt exist. They really do, I'm not kidding, they dont.
-
"The Big Bang"
"Dark matter"
"Quark"
"The strong force"
"The weak force"
"Gluon"
It all sounds like something a drug-induced astrologer/hippie would make up.
I also like 'cosmological constant', 'graviton' and 'string theory'.
How about 'boson'? If that isn't a silly name for a particle, I don't know what is.
I prefer 'hadron'. It takes talent to name something that easily can be misread as something else.
-
How about 'boson'? If that isn't a silly name for a particle, I don't know what is.
How else would you name the particles that obey a statistics first discovered by Satyendra Nath Bose?
-
"Bendy Light" is an informal name used by RE'ers. The formal name of the theory is "Electromagnetic Acceleration".
Well that's much better. =)
-
Bendy Light Theory is in its infancy. The only thing postulated for know is that light does not travel in a straight line, i.e. it bends. This explains many phenomena where an object "sinks" below the horizon. We do not know the exact reason why this is so. To give one would be to posit a hypothesis that has to be experimentally verified.
-
Except you even say it is impossible to distinguish from bendy light and a round earth. Hence it can't be proven.
Also bendy light theorem doesn't explain radar and how gps works.
-
Except you even say it is impossible to distinguish from bendy light and a round earth. Hence it can't be proven.
It is possible to distinguish between bendy light and round earth by performing an experiment in which the earth's surface is not used as a reference.
-
Except you even say it is impossible to distinguish from bendy light and a round earth. Hence it can't be proven.
It is possible to distinguish between bendy light and round earth by performing an experiment in which the earth's surface is not used as a reference.
Got an example Mr.Detonator? I'd love to try one.
-
Except you even say it is impossible to distinguish from bendy light and a round earth. Hence it can't be proven.
It is possible to distinguish between bendy light and round earth by performing an experiment in which the earth's surface is not used as a reference.
Got an example Mr.Detonator? I'd love to try one.
A big long tube that can be swivelled between vertical and horizontal positions, at the ends of which are semisilvered mirrors, through which a laser beam is fired. Behind the mirror opposite the laser is a CCD which can detect the spread of light across the mirror's area as it leaks through. If light does bend, then in a horizontal position the apparatus would detect a vertical smearing of the beam as it rises slightly higher with each pass down the tube. In the vertical position, no such smearing would be apparent. If light does not bend, the results will be identical regardless of tube position.
This is at least the third time such apparatus has been described on this forum. I suspect a bunch of university students competent in physics and electrical engineering could design one of these that would be sensitive to deviation of light in the order of microns.
-
Or cut a tiny hole in a long solid cylinder made of a nonreflective material and see if the light is less than in a vertical position.
-
Bendy Light Theory is in its infancy. The only thing postulated for know is that light does not travel in a straight line, i.e. it bends. This explains many phenomena where an object "sinks" below the horizon. We do not know the exact reason why this is so. To give one would be to posit a hypothesis that has to be experimentally verified.
However, bendy light theory contradicts the FET claim that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore the "sunken" parts of objects (i.e. ship hulls).
-
Bendy Light Theory is in its infancy. The only thing postulated for know is that light does not travel in a straight line, i.e. it bends. This explains many phenomena where an object "sinks" below the horizon. We do not know the exact reason why this is so. To give one would be to posit a hypothesis that has to be experimentally verified.
However, bendy light theory contradicts the FET claim that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore the "sunken" parts of objects (i.e. ship hulls).
Yes but that can be destroyed independently by looking at a ship on the horizon through a telescope and not being able to see its hull.
-
Bendy Light Theory is in its infancy. The only thing postulated for know is that light does not travel in a straight line, i.e. it bends. This explains many phenomena where an object "sinks" below the horizon. We do not know the exact reason why this is so. To give one would be to posit a hypothesis that has to be experimentally verified.
However, bendy light theory contradicts the FET claim that a sufficiently powerful telescope can restore the "sunken" parts of objects (i.e. ship hulls).
Yes but that can be destroyed independently by looking at a ship on the horizon through a telescope and not being able to see its hull.
Obviously you didn't use a powerful enough telescope.
-
Bendy Light Theory is in its infancy. The only thing postulated for know is that light does not travel in a straight line, i.e. it bends. This explains many phenomena where an object "sinks" below the horizon. We do not know the exact reason why this is so. To give one would be to posit a hypothesis that has to be experimentally verified.
BLT can't happen though. At altitude it would appear day while below it would be night. Here is a diagram from another thread that explains why.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/Bugdozer/evenmorestupidlight.jpg)
Point 1 = an observer on the ground.
Points 2, 3, 4 - observers at different distances and altitudes who will see the light beam at increasingly greater angles below the horizon.
There. I have illustrated your "how sunsets happen" argument. And you can see the natural consequences. Bye bye, bendy light.
-
At altitude it would appear day while below it would be night.
The same thing happens on a round earth.
-
At altitude it would appear day while below it would be night.
The same thing happens on a round earth.
You missed the important part where if you went higher then suddenly you'd lose the sunlight.
So it would go: Surface - Dark
Special Altitude: Light
Above that altitude: Dark again.
-
At altitude it would appear day while below it would be night.
The same thing happens on a round earth.
You missed the important part where if you went higher then suddenly you'd lose the sunlight.
So it would go: Surface - Dark
Special Altitude: Light
Above that altitude: Dark again.
No it wouldn't.
-
At altitude it would appear day while below it would be night.
The same thing happens on a round earth.
You missed the important part where if you went higher then suddenly you'd lose the sunlight.
So it would go: Surface - Dark
Special Altitude: Light
Above that altitude: Dark again.
No it wouldn't.
It would, because you all think the Sun acts as a spotlight. This means there is a maximum upper angle it casts light out at.
-
It would, because you all think the Sun acts as a spotlight. This means there is a maximum upper angle it casts light out at.
The spotlight Sun idea is an explanation for day and night. If light bends, it is unnecessary.
-
If light bends, it is unnecessary.
But light doesn't bend. You've admitted so on several occasions, which meant you had to resort to hilarious tales like ships literally sink when they go over the horizon and the government rebuilds a new one at the final destination.
You were more funny when you posted that stuff.
-
So there is a giant ball of fusion giving off high amounts of radiation only 3000 miles up? Well within the earths magnetic field? Why do we exist?
-
But light doesn't bend. You've admitted so on several occasions
No I haven't.
So there is a giant ball of fusion giving off high amounts of radiation only 3000 miles up? Well within the earths magnetic field? Why do we exist?
A fusion powered Sun is a Round Earth idea. The FE sun is too small to undergo nuclear fusion for an extended period of time without burning out.
-
But light doesn't bend. You've admitted so on several occasions
No I haven't.
Yep you have.
The approximation does not work for the sinking ship effect because it becomes less correct for light which is closer to horizontal. Unless you can show me an ocean whose surface is not close to horizontal, the approximation does not apply.
...
You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.
Seriously. Post some funny stuff. Like fishes nudging boats or sky mirrors. I like it when you post stuff like that.
-
Yep you have.
The approximation does not work for the sinking ship effect because it becomes less correct for light which is closer to horizontal. Unless you can show me an ocean whose surface is not close to horizontal, the approximation does not apply.
I didn't say anything about light not bending in that quote.
You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.
I am not Jack, and his opinions are not mine.
-
I didn't say anything about light not bending in that quote.
The discussion was about bendy light. You gave a formula to describe it, then admitted it doesn't work. Therefore we understood that light could not be shown to bend as you require.
You told us that you were going to produce a new and improved formula. It never happened, you just waited a while for a few more noobs to come along so you could parade your old crap like it was new crap.
That makes me do sad face at my computer. :(
I am not Jack, and his opinions are not mine.
I never said they were. Read Jacks post. It applies to you.
-
The discussion was about bendy light. You gave a formula to describe it, then admitted it doesn't work. Therefore we understood that light could not be shown to bend as you require.
I gave an approximate equation. I made it clear from the beginning that it was only an approximation, and could not produce accurate results.
You told us that you were going to produce a new and improved formula. It never happened, you just waited a while for a few more noobs to come along so you could parade your old crap like it was new crap.
That makes me do sad face at my computer. :(
I should still have the calculations I made to produce my approximate equation somewhere. I was at my mother's place at the time, and I'm not sure what I did with them on my way back to Sydney.
I never said they were. Read Jacks post. It applies to you.
I have read Jack's post, thank you.
-
Yeah Parsy, post some more comedy. I know - put on a ruff and dance! Dance, Parsy, dance!
-
I gave an approximate equation. I made it clear from the beginning that it was only an approximation, and could not produce accurate results.
If it can't produce accurate results then it's no use to anyone.
The fact that (by your own admittance) it gets less and less accurate as you approach the horizon kinda bangs the nail in the coffin.
I have read Jack's post, thank you.
Now follow the instructions therein.
-
If it can't produce accurate results then it's no use to anyone.
The fact that (by your own admittance) it gets less and less accurate as you approach the horizon kinda bangs the nail in the coffin.
So how does that equate to saying "light does not bend"?
Now follow the instructions therein.
No.
-
So how does that equate to saying "light does not bend"?
Things "are" if there is evidence that they "are".
There is no evidence that light bends (in a way you require).
And so light does not bend.
Again Steve we're in KS3 area.
-
Things "are" if there is evidence that they "are".
There is no evidence that light bends (in a way you require).
And so light does not bend.
This is so weak, I'm not even going to bother giving it an intelligent response. When you stop committing logical fallacies I'd expect a ninth grader to be able to identify, we can discuss this maturely.
-
This is so weak, I'm not even going to bother giving it an intelligent response. When you stop committing logical fallacies I'd expect a ninth grader to be able to identify, we can discuss this maturely.
??? You win by not giving a reply. ???
Feel free to point out the fallacies. Or stop posting. Your choice.
-
Feel free to point out the fallacies.
"Things are if there is evidence that they are" does not mean that "things are not if there is no evidence that they are". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
-
That is true, however since we are talking about a scientific debate, if there is no evidence, we have to throw it out until there is evidence for it.
Otherwise we could never move forward.
-
Feel free to point out the fallacies.
"Things are if there is evidence that they are" does not mean that "things are not if there is no evidence that they are". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I know! That's cool! :thumbsup:
You have given us no evidence that light bends as you require.
/thread
-
That is true, however since we are talking about a scientific debate, if there is no evidence, we have to throw it out until there is evidence for it.
Otherwise we could never move forward.
There is evidence for it, if we assume the Earth to be flat. And since the purpose of this website is to debate whether or not the Earth is flat, EA theory has a perfectly valid place being discussed here, within the context of FET.
I know! That's cool! :thumbsup:
So you retract your earlier statement that light does not bend.
-
That is true, however since we are talking about a scientific debate, if there is no evidence, we have to throw it out until there is evidence for it.
Otherwise we could never move forward.
There is evidence for it, if we assume the Earth to be flat. And since the purpose of this website is to debate whether or not the Earth is flat, EA theory has a perfectly valid place being discussed here, within the context of FET.
I know! That's cool! :thumbsup:
So you retract your earlier statement that light does not bend.
"There is evidence for it, if we assume the Earth to be flat."
Exactly, you have to assume something for the evidence to be true. So that is no real evidence. Evaluate bendy light by itself, and it does not hold up.
-
Exactly, you have to assume something for the evidence to be true. So that is no real evidence. Evaluate bendy light by itself, and it does not hold up.
Not if you're looking at it as a hypothesis by itself. But as an explanation for certain observations within FET, it works very well. Then if evidence is collected for EA theory, it can be used to support FET, and other evidence for FET can be used to support the idea of bendy light.
-
So you retract your earlier statement that light does not bend.
Nope. There's an alarming amount of evidence that light does not bend as you require.
The only evidence you gave was quickly retracted when it was shown to be horribly inaccurate.
Bendy light doesn't work. Full stop. Hence Jack's post on the matter.
-
Nope. There's an alarming amount of evidence that light does not bend as you require.
That's an interesting claim, considering the difficulty you seem to be having with explaining this evidence in the other thread.
-
Exactly, you have to assume something for the evidence to be true. So that is no real evidence. Evaluate bendy light by itself, and it does not hold up.
Not if you're looking at it as a hypothesis by itself. But as an explanation for certain observations within FET, it works very well. Then if evidence is collected for EA theory, it can be used to support FET, and other evidence for FET can be used to support the idea of bendy light.
Is that not circular reasoning? EA can be supported if you assume FE is true, and FE can be supported if you assume EA is true.
-
Nope. There's an alarming amount of evidence that light does not bend as you require.
That's an interesting claim, considering the difficulty you seem to be having with explaining this evidence in the other thread.
Not really. In the other thread you asked for an experiment. I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.
-
Is that not circular reasoning? EA can be supported if you assume FE is true, and FE can be supported if you assume EA is true.
No, it's not. We still require evidence for both, in the end. What I'm saying is that as FET is still a developing theory with many holes, EA seems a likely candidate to explain a lot of observations, and should not be discarded on this basis.
-
Not really. In the other thread you asked for an experiment. I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.
And when I asked you a simple question about it, you derailed the thread.
-
EA seems a likely candidate to explain a lot of observations, and should not be discarded on this basis.
It breaks just about every known law in the universe. It has been discarded on this basis.
-
But when you want to find out how likely RET vs. FET is, you have to throw out EA because it is dependent on it already being a FE. If the world was flat, then yes EA would be an acceptable theory (still has many holes but those can be worked out). However, you cannot assume the end result and then use that to prove something dependent on it.
Basically, you can't really assume stuff if you want it to still be a valid theory. ;D
-
However, you cannot assume the end result and then use that to prove something dependent on it.
I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that it warrants further discussion and experimentation.
-
However you yourself said that EA and BLT require a FE. Meaning until a FE is proven, EA and BLT are NOT acceptable as evidence.
Which means this thread is moot until FE is proven NOT using BLT and EA.
-
I'll just chime in to mention that Bendy Light is not believed by many Flat Earthers. It seems to me to be an invented fantasy, and it violates occam's razor: there is no phenomenon which is not better or equally well explained in far simpler terms, such as by the natural perspective conventions laid down by Rowbotham (the father of modern science), and taking into account the proper distances of the heavenly bodies.
However, I am respectful of my colleagues who hold these beliefs.
-
However you yourself said that EA and BLT require a FE. Meaning until a FE is proven, EA and BLT are NOT acceptable as evidence.
Which means this thread is moot until FE is proven NOT using BLT and EA.
I didn't say EA requires a FE. It's perfectly conceivable that light could bend if the Earth were round, though there's really no need for it to.
If light were shown to bend as predicted by EAT, however, that would be evidence for FET because all our observations would then need to account for the bend in the light.
-
If you can prove EA and BLT without assuming a flat earth, then be my guest.
-
If you can prove EA and BLT without assuming a flat earth, then be my guest.
I can't at this point. But to my knowledge, no experiment has yet been done which attempted to, which is why it is not worth discarding yet. If we attempt to find evidence and cannot, then we can consider whether to revise the experiments or discard it.
-
My experiment from before should prove or disprove it. Long solid cylinder, small hole just bigger than lasers diameter, laser, someway to measure light. Measure light at beginning, then measure light at end. If they are not the same, then that might be BLT in effect.
If however then you get the same results with the tube in a vertical orientation, then you know it is not BLT.
See how much better it is when we accept each others arguments?
-
My experiment from before should prove or disprove it. Long solid cylinder, small hole just bigger than lasers diameter, laser, someway to measure light. Measure light at beginning, then measure light at end. If they are not the same, then that might be BLT in effect.
If however then you get the same results with the tube in a vertical orientation, then you know it is not BLT.
See how much better it is when we accept each others arguments?
I'd still like to know how you're going to measure the intensity of the light at the beginning of the tube after it has already passed into the hole. Apart from that, your idea seems valid - at least, to within the uncertainty of the equipment used.
-
There probably is some way to measure it. But at least we know of a doable test.
-
My experiment from before should prove or disprove it. Long solid cylinder, small hole just bigger than lasers diameter, laser, someway to measure light. Measure light at beginning, then measure light at end. If they are not the same, then that might be BLT in effect.
If however then you get the same results with the tube in a vertical orientation, then you know it is not BLT.
See how much better it is when we accept each others arguments?
Don't forget to take a 113 m long hollow straight cylinder and position it perfectly leveled horizontally so that there is a declination of 1 mm.
-
Who said 113 Meters? With reasonably accurate instruments, you can do it at far shorter distances.
-
Not really.
-
Yes really.
Even if only 5% of the light is bent, you can easily record that and test against the vertical.
Want to contribute more to the topic?
Too bad I can't find that post you made yesterday. The one were you breakdown and start cursing me out.
Want to tell me why we need 113 meters?
-
percent are not a valid measure of the curvature of the light beam. Seeing that you don't even know the units of the quantity you are trying to measure, I highly doubt you are competent for performing such an experiment.
-
You my friend, have obviously failed science.
If 5% less of the light made it to the other end, you could easily find out the acceleration of light upward. I guess you have no intuition either?
-
You my friend, have obviously failed science.
If 5% less of the light made it to the other end, you could easily find out the acceleration of light upward. I guess you have no intuition either?
How?
-
If 5% of the light didn't make it to the end, and we know the diameter of the light beam, we can find out how much it must have gone upwards. Since we know the upward distance, we can find out the acceleration as we know how long it took the light to get to the other side. Knowing the acceleration, well know you know the bending/acceleration of light.
This is high school physics.
-
If 5% of the light didn't make it to the end, and we know the diameter of the light beam, we can find out how much it must have gone upwards. Since we know the upward distance, we can find out the acceleration as we know how long it took the light to get to the other side. Knowing the acceleration, well know you know the bending/acceleration of light.
This is high school physics.
This is high school physics if you assume the light beam is made up of a series of classical projectiles. It isn't.
-
lol, what acceleration are you talking about? Also, you didn't provide the equation you will use, so I guess it is not so easy.
-
Lets say it went up 1 mm. It took lets say 1 microsecond. So it accelerates 2 mm/microsecond^2. There is your acceleration.
-
Lets say it went up 1 mm. It took lets say 1 microsecond. So it accelerates 2 mm/microsecond^2. There is your acceleration.
This would mean that the hollow cylinder is 300 meters long and your acceleration, in a more standard form is 2x109 m/s2!
-
Facepalm.
That were numbers I made up. I didn't have time to give you realistic numbers. However the experiment would give these realistic numbers that you desire.
-
how will you ensure the laser light is fired parallel to the axis of the cylinder? And you still haven't posted an equation relating declination of the light beam to the reduction in intensity.
-
I was giving a rough overview of the experiment. I am sorry you are addicted to formulae but I have not put much time into this experiment as i was merely showing how it could be done.
-
But to my knowledge, no experiment has yet been done which attempted to, which is why it is not worth discarding yet.
Y'see your problem Steve is that the rest of the world has already figured out the earth is round. Therefore there was never any need to experiment with the curvature of light across the horizon.
But before you baww about circular logic there are also countless equations and scientific phenomena which prevent light bending as you require. Jack cited Einstein. There's many others.
However, you're a physics student at a reasonably affluent university. You're in a unique position to perform such experiments. I suggest you make it your final year project.
Post back when you're done. Not before.
-
I was giving a rough overview of the experiment. I am sorry you are addicted to formulae but I have not put much time into this experiment as i was merely showing how it could be done.
He is addicted to formulae. When he's not quoting equations, all he can do is grunt like a caveman.
-
I was giving a rough overview of the experiment. I am sorry you are addicted to formulae but I have not put much time into this experiment as i was merely showing how it could be done.
He is addicted to formulae. When he's not quoting equations, all he can do is grunt like a caveman.
lolwut? You obviously have no idea how experiments are performed. Have a nice day watching sci-fi on Discovery.
-
He is addicted to formulae. When he's not quoting equations, all he can do is grunt like a caveman.
lolwut?
Q.E.D.
-
Y'see your problem Steve is that the rest of the world has already figured out the earth is round. Therefore there was never any need to experiment with the curvature of light across the horizon.
This is true, but also irrelevant.
But before you baww about circular logic there are also countless equations and scientific phenomena which prevent light bending as you require. Jack cited Einstein. There's many others.
Einstein was a person, not an equation or a scientific phenomenon. Name one such thing that prevents light from bending in this way.
However, you're a physics student at a reasonably affluent university. You're in a unique position to perform such experiments. I suggest you make it your final year project.
Thank you for your suggestion.
-
Einstein was a person, not an equation or a scientific phenomenon. Name one such thing that prevents light from bending in this way.
The Laws Of Physics.
-
Einstein was a person, not an equation or a scientific phenomenon. Name one such thing that prevents light from bending in this way.
The Laws Of Physics.
Could you be more specific? I just cannot understand how the third law of thermodynamics prevents light from bending.
-
Could you be more specific?
I was typing out that exact sentence when I saw you had posted.
-
Could you be more specific?
I was typing out that exact sentence when I saw you had posted.
Why should I be more specific to people who are mentally capable of understanding what I mean but must have their brains switched off?
Spin on it.
-
Why should I be more specific to people who are mentally capable of understanding what I mean but must have their brains switched off?
Because that's how we play the game here.
-
Why should I be more specific to people who are mentally capable of understanding what I mean but must have their brains switched off?
Because that's how we play the game here.
If that's the game then I'm going off the court and taking the ball with me.
-
Name one such thing that prevents light from bending in this way.
You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.
Seriously. Post some funny stuff. Like fishes nudging boats or sky mirrors. I like it when you post stuff like that.
-
Name one such thing that prevents light from bending in this way.
You seem to be suffering from amnesia. Let me quote Jack:
The debate is over long time ago. Due to a consensus among the FEW members, the bendy light theory (its violation to GR's equivalence principle on gravitation=acceleration; an elevator accelerating upward should cause a horizontal light beam bend down, not up, relative to the observer) is no longer the plausible explanation behind optical phenomenons such as sinking ship effect or sunsets/sunrises. We decided to keep our old traditional perspective explanations instead.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
Please stop spreading this theory around to mislead new members.
Seriously. Post some funny stuff. Like fishes nudging boats or sky mirrors. I like it when you post stuff like that.
-
whups double post
-
A fusion powered Sun is a Round Earth idea. The FE sun is too small to undergo nuclear fusion for an extended period of time without burning out.
So where does the radiation come from then?
The Laws Of Physics.
Could you be more specific? I just cannot understand how the third law of thermodynamics prevents light from bending.
Light has no mass hence it won't bend. Go read a textbook if you are obviously so thick you think light can be bent in this way. You are the person who is postulating it can be bent, YOU show how it can be bent, not the other way around.
It is like if I say that there's a flying spaghetti monster that I see every night, it is up to ME to prove it, not you.
-
So where does the radiation come from then?
This is unknown. My personal hypothesis is that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma, which produces energy by annihilating quarks with antiquarks.
Light has no mass hence it won't bend. Go read a textbook if you are obviously so thick you think light can be bent in this way. You are the person who is postulating it can be bent, YOU show how it can be bent, not the other way around.
It is like if I say that there's a flying spaghetti monster that I see every night, it is up to ME to prove it, not you.
Actually, you're misunderstanding our claims. We are not saying "light definitely bends". We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light. REers are the only ones claiming that they are able to prove anything, with their unfounded statements that "bendy light has been disproven".
-
So where does the radiation come from then?
This is unknown. My personal hypothesis is that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma, which produces energy by annihilating quarks with antiquarks.
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?
-
We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light.
I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.
-
So where does the radiation come from then?
This is unknown. My personal hypothesis is that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma, which produces energy by annihilating quarks with antiquarks.
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?
Given that we have yet to observe free quarks I would say "NO."
Though cosmological theorists believe that the early universe (almost immediately after the Big Bang) was a quark-gluon plasma.
So Parsifal, what causes you to believe that the Sun is made of free quarks and gluons? What flavor of quarks are they?
edit: I stand corrected. It seems they've been able to (almost) create a quark-gluon plasma at Brookhaven. However, a temperature of trillions of Kelvin is necessary to create such a plasma, and the core temperature of the sun is only 15.7 million degrees. Hardly hot enough.
-
A simple spectral analysis of the sun shows that hydrogen is being fused into hydrogen. Thats something that johannes can do in his garden for a couple of thousand dollars, possibly less. How on Earth does this whole QGP thing work? I don't even know where to start with whats wrong with that.
-
I think you mean that hydrogen is being fused into helium. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by Johannes being able to do this in his garden.
In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation
-
I think you mean that hydrogen is being fused into helium. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by Johannes being able to do this in his garden.
In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation
Yeah i did mean that. In one of the neutrino threads ive been trying to come up with a way of detecting neutrinos for less than a copy of a popular science magazine.
-
I haven't yet succeded, when I do though ill book my tickets to Stockholm.
-
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?
Yes.
We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light.
I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.
As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.
Given that we have yet to observe free quarks I would say "NO."
Then you would present a conclusion without first testing the hypothesis.
So Parsifal, what causes you to believe that the Sun is made of free quarks and gluons? What flavor of quarks are they?
It's the only mechanism I can think of capable of producing such a large amount of power in such a small space for such a long period of time. Their flavour is unknown.
edit: I stand corrected. It seems they've been able to (almost) create a quark-gluon plasma at Brookhaven. However, a temperature of trillions of Kelvin is necessary to create such a plasma, and the core temperature of the sun is only 15.7 million degrees. Hardly hot enough.
The core temperature of the Sun is 15.7 million K according to RET, yes. Try not to get it mixed up with FET; "flat" and "round" are quite different concepts.
A simple spectral analysis of the sun shows that hydrogen is being fused into helium.
Could you provide me a source which supports this idea? I'm very curious as to how this would work, given that in the RE model sunlight is produced in the photosphere and nuclear fusion takes place in the core.
In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation
They don't "know" anything. They have a theory that seems to work, that's all.
-
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?
Yes.
We are simply saying "if the Earth is flat, then bendy light could explain many observed phenomena" and attempting to come up with a testable model of bendy light.
I gave you one. Designed for kiddies. That's how hard FE physics is to break.
As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.
Given that we have yet to observe free quarks I would say "NO."
Then you would present a conclusion without first testing the hypothesis.
So Parsifal, what causes you to believe that the Sun is made of free quarks and gluons? What flavor of quarks are they?
It's the only mechanism I can think of capable of producing such a large amount of power in such a small space for such a long period of time. Their flavour is unknown.
edit: I stand corrected. It seems they've been able to (almost) create a quark-gluon plasma at Brookhaven. However, a temperature of trillions of Kelvin is necessary to create such a plasma, and the core temperature of the sun is only 15.7 million degrees. Hardly hot enough.
The core temperature of the Sun is 15.7 million K according to RET, yes. Try not to get it mixed up with FET; "flat" and "round" are quite different concepts.
A simple spectral analysis of the sun shows that hydrogen is being fused into helium.
Could you provide me a source which supports this idea? I'm very curious as to how this would work, given that in the RE model sunlight is produced in the photosphere and nuclear fusion takes place in the core.
In additon, "round earth" scientists know exactly what's going on in the Sun, and exactly what produces its radiation:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation
They don't "know" anything. They have a theory that seems to work, that's all.
So FET has a floating plasma ball trillions of kelvins hot a few thousand miles above the surface?
No wonder there's planar warming.
-
So let me get this straight. In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense. Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?
Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
-
So let me get this straight. In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense. Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?
The pursuit of truth.
Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
I agree. We should never have adopted relativity; Newtonian mechanics was all we needed.
-
Is the radiation from such a reaction consistent with the radiation observed from the sun?
Yes.
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?
-
So let me get this straight. In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense. Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?
The pursuit of truth.
Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
I agree. We should never have adopted relativity; Newtonian mechanics was all we needed.
Your analogy is an incorrect one. Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete. It doesn't accurately describe motion at the atomic scale, at high relative speeds, and near extremely large masses. This is why relativity and quantum mechanics have to be compatible with Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic, non-quantum regimes. You're proposing an entirely different explanation for the exact same observations.
-
Whats wrong with relativity? If it wasn't for relativity gold would look just like silver, funky new 'spintronics' stuff wouldn't exist and radiotherapy machines would look somewhat different. In fact anything using spin wouldn't work fermi-dirac statistics, you'd be able to make anything into a bose-einstein condensate. Chemistry would be very different assuming it even existed. A universe with out relativity would be a strange beast indeed
-
Your analogy is an incorrect one. Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete. It doesn't accurately describe motion at the atomic scale, at high relative speeds, and near extremely large masses. This is why relativity and quantum mechanics have to be compatible with Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic, non-quantum regimes. You're proposing an entirely different explanation for the exact same observations.
Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics make fundamentally different assumptions about how the universe works. They can't both be right.
-
Your analogy is an incorrect one. Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete. It doesn't accurately describe motion at the atomic scale, at high relative speeds, and near extremely large masses. This is why relativity and quantum mechanics have to be compatible with Newtonian mechanics in the non-relativistic, non-quantum regimes. You're proposing an entirely different explanation for the exact same observations.
Newtonian mechanics and relativistic mechanics make fundamentally different assumptions about how the universe works. They can't both be right.
What fundamentally different assumptions do they make? The only things Newtonian mechanics assumes are that a force applied to an object is equal to the change in its momentum over time, that an unperturbed object will not accelerate, and that for every force applied to an object, there is an equal and opposite force applied back. Relativistic mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics under normal conditions.
They are both correct, under different conditions.
-
If 1 person says a cow is a 4 legged mammal and another person says a cow is a 4 legged mammal from the family bovidae, is the first person wrong and the second person correct? Of course not the second description is a little more complete. Now if i transfer this to mechanics we can explore what Einstein saw that Newton didn't. Classical mechanics (often, and perhaps unfairly, called Newtonian Mechanics) uses Gallilean transforms to transfrom between inertial reference frames not Lorentz transforms. It is also based on Newtons 3 laws of motion. These laws are (copied shamelessly from wikipedia)
First law
There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. Newton's first law is often referred to as the law of inertia.
Second law
Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. Since by definition the mass of a particle is constant, this law is often stated as, "Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma): the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration."
Third law
Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. Newton's third law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law.
We see that the second law is a definition, not really right or wrong, the third law follows largely from the second law. The first law just says if you don't do anything nothing will change. None of these points are wrong as such, the problem lies more with Galilean relativity. Einstein added a further two postulates to mechanics. Again from wikipedia,
* The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
* The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.". That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. Newton's third law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law.
The second one is the key one. It is this postulate that leads us to replace Galilean transforms with Lorentz transforms. From this change comes all of the special relativity. So then are the two mutually exclusive? No they're not. When describing an object of low mass and low speed both Lorentz transforms and Galilean transforms give the same answer. So make to my rather trivial example with the cows Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't realise that he was incomplete. Einstein is quite possibly incomplete as well, although the mixture of special relativity and quantum mechanics used to describe electromagnetism is the most successful theory ever.
-
Exactly. Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.
I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.
-
Exactly. Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.
I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.
No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.
-
With Physics we can model reality, thats all. Most of the time we can model it reasonably closely. Every now and again we stumble on something that appears to be more than a model. Newtonian mechanics was for a long while thought to be the later, until James Maxwell showed that it could not be. Einstein, with significant help from messiers Maxwell, Lorentz and Possion showed why Newton's work was only an approximation. The general theory of relativity is now starting to show some tension with cosmological data, though thats beyond the scope of this forum as presumably cosmological data is faked anyway. In quantum mechanics there seems to be some possibility we have found something that really has some underlying truth to it. At least it agrees with experiment to within 1 part in 10^12 or so. However while this describes the mechanics of particles it doesnt exaplin why we have the different types and families of particles we do, a question I personally find very interesting.
There is no such thing as a completely true theory. Thats why we call them theories. If theres one piece of scientific philosophy that people tend to know its that it takes an infinite number of experiments to prove a theory and only 1 to disprove it. Except on this forum where it takes 1 experiment to prove something and getting on for an infinite number to disprove it.
-
Question, this was brought up before, how come you like to use parts of relativity (specifically special relativity and how the earth never accelerates past light speed) but not the whole gravity = space time curvature?
Also Newtonian physics works very well in ordinary situations. I will give you a chemistry example. We are all taught the ideal gas law and we use it frequently. It works decently (not as well as newtonian physics but this is just an example) but it does not hold on the extremes (pressure, temperature, and attraction of the molecules). Very similar to newtonian physics.
-
With Physics we can model reality, thats all. Most of the time we can model it reasonably closely. Every now and again we stumble on something that appears to be more than a model. Newtonian mechanics was for a long while thought to be the later, until James Maxwell showed that it could not be. Einstein, with significant help from messiers Maxwell, Lorentz and Possion showed why Newton's work was only an approximation. The general theory of relativity is now starting to show some tension with cosmological data, though thats beyond the scope of this forum as presumably cosmological data is faked anyway. In quantum mechanics there seems to be some possibility we have found something that really has some underlying truth to it. At least it agrees with experiment to within 1 part in 10^12 or so. However while this describes the mechanics of particles it doesnt exaplin why we have the different types and families of particles we do, a question I personally find very interesting.
There is no such thing as a completely true theory. Thats why we call them theories. If theres one piece of scientific philosophy that people tend to know its that it takes an infinite number of experiments to prove a theory and only 1 to disprove it. Except on this forum where it takes 1 experiment to prove something and getting on for an infinite number to disprove it.
In what sense is Ptolemic cosmology at odds with observed data? The only theories which face "tension" are those which seek to go beyond the obvious ramifications of that which is revealed by empirical study.
Question, this was brought up before, how come you like to use parts of relativity (specifically special relativity and how the earth never accelerates past light speed) but not the whole gravity = space time curvature?
What rationale could I possibly have for accepting parts of a thesis which are clearly false, or rejecting parts which are clearly true? In the spirit of proper science, I have no sentimental commitment to Einstein's work, and accordingly I will only subsume those claims he make which cohere in reality, just as one may thoroughly accept Cartesian geometry whilst abhoring and lampooning Cartesian metaphysics.
Also Newtonian physics works very well in ordinary situations. I will give you a chemistry example. We are all taught the ideal gas law and we use it frequently. It works decently (not as well as newtonian physics but this is just an example) but it does not hold on the extremes (pressure, temperature, and attraction of the molecules). Very similar to newtonian physics.
I consider a scientific model to "work well" when it accurately maps the connection between different pieces of related empirical data by matters of fact, such that it may make reliable predictions about the outcomes of further empirical testing. Since by your own admission in the above quote, Newtonian physics fails to perform this definitive procedure, you will forgive me for not considering it a model which "works well".
-
So let me get this straight. In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense. Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?
Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
The current theory isn't perfect at the moment. The neutrino flux from the sun is way off, so the model of the neutrino is being modified to include neutrinos oscillating to different mass states in transit from the sun. This model is still being tested and improved.
-
So let me get this straight. In "round earth" theory, we have a model for the sun that fits the data perfectly, offers a complete explanation for the origin and nature of solar radiation, and makes perfect sense. Through this model we know the mechanism by which the energy is first produced (gravitational nuclear fusion of hydrogen), we know how that energy migrates out of the core (through absorption, re-emission, and convection) and your hypothesis of a quark-gluon plasma is blind speculation based on no evidence, and is preferable why?
Why do we need a new theory, if the old one works so well and is so well-established?
The current theory isn't perfect at the moment. The neutrino flux from the sun is way off, so the model of the neutrino is being modified to include neutrinos oscillating to different mass states in transit from the sun. This model is still being tested and improved.
Well, "perfect" certainly may have been an overstatement, we do understand enough about the Sun to know that it isn't made of free quarks and gluons.
-
Exactly. Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.
I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.
No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.
Honestly, have you actually taken a single physics course? Classical newtonian mechanics does a fine job of explaining motion under normal circumstances. Statements like that is exactly why people laugh at you guys. Would you have fully general relativistic mechanics taught to a freshman physics class in order to explain basic kinematics? Good luck with that.
-
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?
Certainly. The radiation we observe directly is not coming from the Sun's source of power, whatever that may be. Rather, the energy is transferred to the outer layers (which, in my hypothesis, is a thin atmosphere made of the elements we observe in the Sun's absorption spectrum) and then released as (among other things) visible light. The Sun could therefore be expected to behave as a near-perfect black body with various absorption lines, something which observation agrees with quite well.
-
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?
Certainly. The radiation we observe directly is not coming from the Sun's source of power, whatever that may be. Rather, the energy is transferred to the outer layers (which, in my hypothesis, is a thin atmosphere made of the elements we observe in the Sun's absorption spectrum) and then released as (among other things) visible light. The Sun could therefore be expected to behave as a near-perfect black body with various absorption lines, something which observation agrees with quite well.
You're correct, but that doesn't necessarily support your hypothesis that the source of energy is quark-antiquark pair annihilation. You haven't pointed out any evidence that supports your proposed source of energy. In fact, pair annihilation wouldn't explain solar neutrinos, as ERTW pointed out.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=653
-
As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.
Childrens experiments are real experiments, they're just simple enough for children to understand.
Children are taught measures to factor out experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and the "host of other things".
And yet you keep spamming this crap despite being told to stop by the mod team. Hmmmmm.
-
As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.
Childrens experiments are real experiments, they're just simple enough for children to understand.
Children are taught measures to factor out experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and the "host of other things".
And yet you keep spamming this crap despite being told to stop by the mod team. Hmmmmm.
Seriously, if you are still trying to support your double holed card experiment please stop. My simple calculation about the level of accuracy needed to prove anything with this experiment shows that it is useless without some kind of nano-scale light measuring device (the number I calculated was 688nm for a 6m experiment). By looking at it with your eyes (which are good to about 0.01mm or 10 microns) you will not be able to see any difference between bendy light and straight light.
-
(the number I calculated was 688nm for a 6m experiment).
Then don't perform the experiment over 6m.
-
Given that the speed of light has been measured over distances of several miles, the effect of light bending upward should have been pretty obvious.
-
What pray-tell is keeping the quarks free? It takes a vast energy density to stop quarks combining. If anything in a very large dense object they're more likely to from quark degenerate matter. Infact such as state of matter is the cause of a hypothetical star somewhere between a neutron star and a black hole. Quarks really really don't like to be on their own.
-
Infact while I think about it the entire field theory that makes the quark exist has relativity as a cornerstone. My bendy logic sensors are all a'tingling.
-
(the number I calculated was 688nm for a 6m experiment).
Then don't perform the experiment over 6m.
Exactly. That is why your previous experiment proves nothing. However, if you look into SLAC you will probably find what you are looking for.
-
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?
Certainly. The radiation we observe directly is not coming from the Sun's source of power, whatever that may be. Rather, the energy is transferred to the outer layers (which, in my hypothesis, is a thin atmosphere made of the elements we observe in the Sun's absorption spectrum) and then released as (among other things) visible light. The Sun could therefore be expected to behave as a near-perfect black body with various absorption lines, something which observation agrees with quite well.
In other words, no, you don't have any evidence (sorry, but yet another unsupported hypothesis is not evidence) that the radiation observed from the sun is consistent with quark-gluon reactions. Thanks, I'm glad that we could clear that up.
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
-
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Nope. ParistrollSteve asked for an experiment to perform which proved light was rectilinear. I gave him one performed probably daily by little kiddiewinks. The experiment is adaptable and falsifiable, so more than meets his demands. If he chooses not to perform it then it's not my loss.
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!
ERTW is not an FE'er. Please try to keep up, will you?
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!
ERTW is not an FE'er. Please try to keep up, will you?
Devil's Advocate, FE'er, makes no difference to me. Still stands.
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!
ERTW is not an FE'er. Please try to keep up, will you?
Devil's Advocate, FE'er, makes no difference to me. Still stands.
He's neither. He's argued for the earth being round. He's simply pointing out that one would need an incredible amount of precision to carry out the experiment proposed by TD.
-
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing
Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!
ERTW is not an FE'er. Please try to keep up, will you?
Devil's Advocate, FE'er, makes no difference to me. Still stands.
He's neither. He's argued for the earth being round. He's simply pointing out that one would need an incredible amount of precision to carry out the experiment proposed by TD.
My mistake then.
-
You're correct, but that doesn't necessarily support your hypothesis that the source of energy is quark-antiquark pair annihilation.
I didn't say it did. The question was whether it was consistent with it, which it is. To be honest, I'm more interested in bendy light than the power source of the Sun. The quark-gluon plasma idea was just that, an idea, and it probably has plenty of flaws in it. I'm not sure if any FE researchers are dealing with the subject of solar energy specifically, but if so they would be better qualified than myself to give a detailed answer on this.
However, given my ignorance of any more plausible alternative, I stand by my quark-gluon plasma idea as a FE Sun power source for the time being.
In other words, no, you don't have any evidence (sorry, but yet another unsupported hypothesis is not evidence) that the radiation observed from the sun is consistent with quark-gluon reactions. Thanks, I'm glad that we could clear that up.
By that reasoning, there's no evidence that observed solar radiation is consistent with nuclear fusion either.
-
Exactly. Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.
I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.
No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.
Honestly, have you actually taken a single physics course? Classical newtonian mechanics does a fine job of explaining motion under normal circumstances. Statements like that is exactly why people laugh at you guys. Would you have fully general relativistic mechanics taught to a freshman physics class in order to explain basic kinematics? Good luck with that.
I would rather have anybody and everybody being taught the truth than taught what literally amounts to lies. The fact that you don't see the inherent problem with students being taught content which has been thoroughly disproved demonstrates the cognitive dissonance endemic to your globularist mentality.
-
In other words, no, you don't have any evidence (sorry, but yet another unsupported hypothesis is not evidence) that the radiation observed from the sun is consistent with quark-gluon reactions. Thanks, I'm glad that we could clear that up.
By that reasoning, there's no evidence that observed solar radiation is consistent with nuclear fusion either.
Fusion has been observed on earth under controlled conditions and solar radiation has been observed above the atmosphere. Those observations can be (and I'm reasonably sure that they have been) compared.
-
Fusion has been observed on earth under controlled conditions and solar radiation has been observed above the atmosphere. Those observations can be (and I'm reasonably sure that they have been) compared.
We don't observe radiation from solar fusion directly according to RET, so this is irrelevant.
-
Yes we do. Notice all that heat? That is radiation. While the emission spectra is that of a very hot blackbody, we still can see the intense heat produced. Also I am pretty sure some unusual radiation (neutrino's, neutrons, solar wind) comes straight from high energy fusion.
-
Yes we do. Notice all that heat? That is radiation. While the emission spectra is that of a very hot blackbody, we still can see the intense heat produced. Also I am pretty sure some unusual radiation (neutrino's, neutrons, solar wind) comes straight from high energy fusion.
Please explain how photons (heat radiation) and the solar wind can come directly from fusion when there is a layer of plasma half a gigametre thick shielding its core from our view.
-
Yes we do. Notice all that heat? That is radiation. While the emission spectra is that of a very hot blackbody, we still can see the intense heat produced. Also I am pretty sure some unusual radiation (neutrino's, neutrons, solar wind) comes straight from high energy fusion.
Please explain how photons (heat radiation) and the solar wind can come directly from fusion when there is a layer of plasma half a gigametre thick shielding its core from our view.
http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/Sunlayers.html
-
http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/Sunlayers.html
That page claims the direct source of photons we see is the photosphere, not the core where the fusion occurs. Since the light isn't coming directly from the fusion, how can you say it is consistent with the fusion model if you discredit my hypothesis that light reaching us indirectly is consistent with my quark-gluon plasma model?
-
Yeah is you discount solar neutrinos as a fraud then its hard to see into the solar core. One can make assumptions from the chemical composition of the photosphere. This is especially telling when compared to other stars but obviously thats all part of the conspiracy. We both know that quarks don't exist on their own for a large amount of time which is why the QGP has been so hard to find even at insane energies. Its very easy to disprove something when you just label the entire thing a conspiracy, like arguing with a 3 year old going lalalalalalala. Either way lets drag this topc kicking and screaming back to bendy light. What makes light bend. Anyone whos done relativity at high school will see the obvious flaw with this. So presumable we introduce some new type of particle for it to scatter off?
-
Yeah is you discount solar neutrinos as a fraud then its hard to see into the solar core.
There is no reason to believe these neutrinos originate from the Sun.
What makes light bend. Anyone whos done relativity at high school will see the obvious flaw with this. So presumable we introduce some new type of particle for it to scatter off?
Dark Energy makes light bend, the mechanism behind which is unknown. I have studied relativity at a second year university level and I do not see the problem with it.
-
Certainly Superkamiokande if not SNO published the direction their neutrinos came from. If they didn't come from the sun then they came through it or of course the whole thing was made up.
On to accelerating light. As you will no doubt recall from your first year mechanics 'bending' is acceleration. Now for 10 points accelerating a massless particle, anyone? You should be thinking of Einsteins second postulate. The real guts of it I guess is more 3rd/4th year so if your in the second year maybe you havent been through it in detail yet. Anyway light is constrained to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Therefore you can't 'bend' it, you can scatter it which looks like bending a la a lens.
-
On to accelerating light. As you will no doubt recall from your first year mechanics 'bending' is acceleration. Now for 10 points accelerating a massless particle, anyone? You should be thinking of Einsteins second postulate. The real guts of it I guess is more 3rd/4th year so if your in the second year maybe you havent been through it in detail yet. Anyway light is constrained to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Therefore you can't 'bend' it, you can scatter it which looks like bending a la a lens.
Things which travel at a constant speed can't bend? I've never noticed any difficult taking corners at a constant speed while driving.
-
We don't observe radiation from solar fusion directly according to RET, so this is irrelevant.
There's a lot of things we don't observe directly. But we still know they happen. Go away troll.
-
There's a lot of things we don't observe directly. But we still know they happen.
Irrelevant and incorrect.
-
I should probably have said velocity. Acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time. Hence bending is a type of acceleration. This is also enshrined in quantum field theory where all paths other than a straight line cancel out.
-
There's a lot of things we don't observe directly. But we still know they happen.
Irrelevant and incorrect.
Still relevant and still correct. Much of what you're arguing for here is unobserved directly. Stop trying to fail so hard.
-
I should probably have said velocity. Acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time. Hence bending is a type of acceleration. This is also enshrined in quantum field theory where all paths other than a straight line cancel out.
I know what acceleration is, and I am aware that bendy light would need to be accelerating. I concede that there may be things in relativity that I am not aware of which prevent the velocity of a photon being altered in a vacuum. However, suppose relativity is an incomplete theory? Suppose the "straight line" idea applies in a non-inertial frame of reference in the presence of Dark Energy? Should we throw away new ideas just because they conflict with old ones?
-
Still relevant and still correct. Much of what you're arguing for here is unobserved directly. Stop trying to fail so hard.
You have taken my earlier post out of context. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, regardless of whether or not it is correct.
-
You have taken my earlier post out of context. It is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, regardless of whether or not it is correct.
Fraid not. You said that since fusion from the sun (an object millions of miles away) was not "observed directly" then it should be dismissed out of hand (and presumable replaced with your half baked stories about bendy light?). Even if this were true it does not mean it can be dismissed. Observations of many effects can and are made indirectly.
I'm not sure what you think you should or shouldn't observe. You can't really coherently explain yourself. :(
-
I should probably have said velocity. Acceleration is the change in velocity with respect to time. Hence bending is a type of acceleration. This is also enshrined in quantum field theory where all paths other than a straight line cancel out.
I know what acceleration is, and I am aware that bendy light would need to be accelerating. I concede that there may be things in relativity that I am not aware of which prevent the velocity of a photon being altered in a vacuum. However, suppose relativity is an incomplete theory? Suppose the "straight line" idea applies in a non-inertial frame of reference in the presence of Dark Energy? Should we throw away new ideas just because they conflict with old ones?
Ok thats a fair point lets play with the idea and see where it takes us. I'm going to ignore the penultimate sentence because I have no idea what it means and if the Earth is flat then we have no evidence for Dark Energy anyhoo as cosmology is obviously entirely bunkum. We don't need to explain how the universe is expanding if its only a few thousand miles across.
Well where would the problem in relativity lie. I suspect the problem would be with Einsteins second postulate. I that is wrong its very unlikely the theory would have got past the playing around in the office stage. In fact its quite possible that there would be a problem with Maxwells equations as that is where the second postulate comes from, if the look at Maxwells wave equation carefully, in hindsight you can see the where the spark of inspiration came from. But lets assume for the purposes of this there a more subtle second order effect. How can we see if light is bending. Well the obvious choice is a LASER, coherent light in a narrow, fairly parallel beam. I'm assuming that we could use mirrors to increase the effective baseline as a ship appears to go over the horizon the same way regardless of which way I look. Ideally we would need a tube a few miles long with a LASER at each end to see if the beam drifted downwards. Agreed? In true Blue Peter fashion, heres one I made earlier (by 'I', I do of course mean the LIGO collaboration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Infact they built two a few hundred miles apart.
Not to be outdone their European colleagues also built one, not been runnign quite as long, only since 2007. Still though the light would probably have started do drift down the tube by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_interferometer
This I would imagine puts a limit on the effect of maybe a few nanometers per mile. Im jsut extrapolating from the sensitivity they need to look for gravitational waves. I'm sure theres enough detail to piece it together. Of course they could be in on the conspiracy lalalalalala [fingers in ears].
-
You said that since fusion from the sun (an object millions of miles away) was not "observed directly" then it should be dismissed out of hand
If you can point out where I made any such statement, that would be great.
Ok thats a fair point lets play with the idea and see where it takes us. I'm going to ignore the penultimate sentence because I have no idea what it means and if the Earth is flat then we have no evidence for Dark Energy anyhoo as cosmology is obviously entirely bunkum. We don't need to explain how the universe is expanding if its only a few thousand miles across.
In FET, Dark Energy is the force which causes the Earth to accelerate upwards.
Well where would the problem in relativity lie. I suspect the problem would be with Einsteins second postulate. I that is wrong its very unlikely the theory would have got past the playing around in the office stage. In fact its quite possible that there would be a problem with Maxwells equations as that is where the second postulate comes from, if the look at Maxwells wave equation carefully, in hindsight you can see the where the spark of inspiration came from. But lets assume for the purposes of this there a more subtle second order effect. How can we see if light is bending. Well the obvious choice is a LASER, coherent light in a narrow, fairly parallel beam. I'm assuming that we could use mirrors to increase the effective baseline as a ship appears to go over the horizon the same way regardless of which way I look. Ideally we would need a tube a few miles long with a LASER at each end to see if the beam drifted downwards. Agreed? In true Blue Peter fashion, heres one I made earlier (by 'I', I do of course mean the LIGO collaboration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Infact they built two a few hundred miles apart.
Not to be outdone their European colleagues also built one, not been runnign quite as long, only since 2007. Still though the light would probably have started do drift down the tube by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_interferometer
This I would imagine puts a limit on the effect of maybe a few nanometers per mile. Im jsut extrapolating from the sensitivity they need to look for gravitational waves. I'm sure theres enough detail to piece it together. Of course they could be in on the conspiracy lalalalalala [fingers in ears].
How do they ensure that the mirrors are perfectly parallel in such interferometers, without using the surface of the Earth or the laser itself as a guide? Furthermore, nanometres per mile are not units of curvature.
-
I don't know their exact calibration scheme i'm a particle guy not a gravitational guy. Though what makes sense to me is that the kept perpendicular to the ground and then parallel to each other as the ground is flat. I'm sure they have a paper somewhere on it. Either way we're talking about a systematic effect so small differences in the calibration wouldn't make any difference. The effect we're measuring here is huge compared to what they're designed to measure. They have an effective baseline of hundreds of miles. Even on a clear day you couldn't see a ship that far away. Their LASER beam would be very quickly hitting the bottom of the tube. Also the two distance can easily be converted to a curvature for taking the ratio and applying which ever trig function gives you the angle you want (tan in this case).
To be honest event a bench top LASER tube about 1 m long probably completes thousands of reflections. Giving it a baseline of a few km and there its on a coupld of cm to the bottom of the tube.
-
Furthermore, nanometres per mile are not units of curvature.
You are confusing nanometres with millimetres, which are derived from dimensional measurements in post-Euclidean space and therefore the curve is inherent.
-
You said that since fusion from the sun (an object millions of miles away) was not "observed directly" then it should be dismissed out of hand
If you can point out where I made any such statement, that would be great.
I can only assume you have some kind of disability that prevents you from being able to read the text at the top of a page. Sucks to be you.
We don't observe radiation from solar fusion directly according to RET, so this is irrelevant.
Since the light isn't coming directly from the fusion, how can you say it is consistent with the fusion model if you discredit my hypothesis that light reaching us indirectly is consistent with my quark-gluon plasma model?
-
Honestly, have you actually taken a single physics course? Classical newtonian mechanics does a fine job of explaining motion under normal circumstances. Statements like that is exactly why people laugh at you guys. Would you have fully general relativistic mechanics taught to a freshman physics class in order to explain basic kinematics? Good luck with that.
I would rather have anybody and everybody being taught the truth than taught what literally amounts to lies. The fact that you don't see the inherent problem with students being taught content which has been thoroughly disproved demonstrates the cognitive dissonance endemic to your globularist mentality.
I know Newtonian Physics is so useless and has clearly been demonstrated false in every instance. Its so faulty that they've only been using it in artilery range calculations for centuries and it can only help put a bullet through someone's face from a mile and a half away.
-
Predictive power ≠ truth.
-
Newtonian Physics is not wrong. Gallilean Principle of Relativity is.
-
True, but then nor does wild guesses and conspiracy theories. Broadly speaking predictive power is a good indicator of truth. Thats why Newtons laws have prevailed, they were ooooh so close. Also they are definitions, they can't be right or wrong, with the possible exception of the first law. He defines a quantity called force as the product of the mass and the acceleration. You can argue its not a useful definition, but it can't be wrong. Infact, over the years momentum has turned out to be the more useful quantity. The problem lay with Galilean relativity.
Also a quick note about truth. Its becoming increasingly apparent that the truth is not something we are going to understand. We have 5 senses none of which are particularly attuned to higher dimensional spaces or a probabilistic nature of reality. When we find a model that is so close to the truth that we can't tell the difference we're not going to really understand whats going on. We think of electrons as some mixture of a wave and particle. Which is it? Neither, its something that follows similar maths to a particle or a wave under certain conditions. What it actually is we certainly don't have words for. In Physics we model, conception is difficult because we can't see or hear its like trying to describe green to a blind man, or a Beethovens 5th to a deaf man.
-
Exactly. Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances. Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.
I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.
No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.
Honestly, have you actually taken a single physics course? Classical newtonian mechanics does a fine job of explaining motion under normal circumstances. Statements like that is exactly why people laugh at you guys. Would you have fully general relativistic mechanics taught to a freshman physics class in order to explain basic kinematics? Good luck with that.
I would rather have anybody and everybody being taught the truth than taught what literally amounts to lies. The fact that you don't see the inherent problem with students being taught content which has been thoroughly disproved demonstrates the cognitive dissonance endemic to your globularist mentality.
I love your posting style... you write like an ancient mystic. So you're admitting you haven't taken a single physics course then? What then makes you qualified to speak on behalf of it's truth or falsehood?
So you say Newtonian dynamics amount to outright lies and has been thoroughly disproven. By whom has it been disproven?
Why is it then that when I observe a falling ball with a strobe camera that the ball's vertical position as a function of time fits Newton's predictions perfectly? Why is it that Newtonian physics predicts the natural frequency of pendulum perfectly?
What other areas of physics are lies? Should I abandon my Ph.D. research right now, as I'm basing my work on lies?
Predictive power ? truth.
Actually, if a theory correctly predicts natural phenomenon, that's as close as one can get in science to truth.
You people are mistaking an incomplete theory with an incorrect one. Newtonian physics is absolutely correct in the limited view of nature that Newton had access to in the time he lived. When we had access to the atomic realm, it was found that his equations did not accurately describe nature at that level. Thus quantum physics was developed. However, because Newtonian mechanics works so well in the classical regime, quantum physics has to agree with classical physics in the non-quantum regime, which it does. In addition, at high relative speeds, newton's equations break down as well, for the reason Parsec pointed out. Galilean transformations, which is a part of classical dynamics, do not work at high relative speeds. Thus we use special relativity. But just like quantum physics, relativistic dynamics HAS to agree with non-relativistic physics in the non-relativistic regime, WHICH IT DOES.
This is how science works. The more we gain access to the inner workings of nature, the more we must refine and expand upon our interpretations of it. Is any of this getting through to you guys?
-
This is how science works. The more we gain access to the inner workings of nature, the more we must refine and expand upon our interpretations of it. Is any of this getting through to you guys?
Don't count on it.
-
the ground is flat.
Thanks for that.
You are confusing nanometres with millimetres, which are derived from dimensional measurements in post-Euclidean space and therefore the curve is inherent.
Nanometres and millimetres differ only by magnitude, not by dimension.
You said that since fusion from the sun (an object millions of miles away) was not "observed directly" then it should be dismissed out of hand
If you can point out where I made any such statement, that would be great.
I can only assume you have some kind of disability that prevents you from being able to read the text at the top of a page. Sucks to be you.
We don't observe radiation from solar fusion directly according to RET, so this is irrelevant.
Since the light isn't coming directly from the fusion, how can you say it is consistent with the fusion model if you discredit my hypothesis that light reaching us indirectly is consistent with my quark-gluon plasma model?
Could you please bold the specific part where I said that "fusion from the sun ... should be dismissed out of hand"?
-
We can see the neutrinos from the sun. We know its fusion. We know laser beams with effective path lengths of hundreds of miles don't wander. Now can we just get back to the bit where its all a conspiracy, thats the part where I think i've won and it makes me feel all warm inside.
-
We can see the neutrinos from the sun. We know its fusion. We know laser beams with effective path lengths of hundreds of miles don't wander. Now can we just get back to the bit where its all a conspiracy, thats the part where I think i've won and it makes me feel all warm inside.
Sure. Just go post in one of the many conspiracy threads floating around. This thread is for the discussion of bendy light, though it does seem to have become sidetracked somewhat.
-
So then lasers with large path lengths >100 miles. They don't drift noticeably in an experiment looking for micron level contractions and expansions of space. Go. That an some kind of idea of where Einstein was wrong would be nice because I gotta say I'm pretty convinced by his working and the plethora of explained phenomena since.
-
So then lasers with large path lengths >100 miles. They don't drift noticeably in an experiment looking for micron level contractions and expansions of space. Go. That an some kind of idea of where Einstein was wrong would be nice because I gotta say I'm pretty convinced by his working and the plethora of explained phenomena since.
Your suggestion as to how the mirrors were aligned was with reference to the surface of the Earth:
Though what makes sense to me is that the kept perpendicular to the ground and then parallel to each other as the ground is flat.
If this is true, then setting the mirrors perpendicular to the ground and observing no change in the position of the laser would confirm that light does not bend, but it would also confirm that the Earth is flat. If compensation was made for the curvature of the Earth, then if the Earth is flat this compensation would cause the mirrors to not be perfectly parallel and observing no change in the position of the laser would confirm that light does indeed bend.
-
Thats what I thought at first but thats the beauty of using mirrors. Over a few miles the Earth is to a good approximation flat. But at each reflection the light would not quite hit the mirror at normal incidence. Of course in the event there was some combination of angles that did provide near perfect compensation, which im not convinced there are but lets assume there is, then the divergence of the beam would be highly asymmetric. It would go from a circle to a teardrop shape pretty quickly.
-
Thats what I thought at first but thats the beauty of using mirrors. Over a few miles the Earth is to a good approximation flat. But at each reflection the light would not quite hit the mirror at normal incidence. Of course in the event there was some combination of angles that did provide near perfect compensation, which im not convinced there are but lets assume there is, then the divergence of the beam would be highly asymmetric. It would go from a circle to a teardrop shape pretty quickly.
I can't make any sense of this at all.
-
Steve, let's try it like this. Regardless of the shape of the earth, the mirrors must be exactly parallel to each other otherwise you can not get the many reflections required for the experiment to work. If light does bend as you propose, then it would be impossible to arrange the mirrors so that you could get many reflections as is commonly observed.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
-
Could you please bold the specific part where I said that "fusion from the sun ... should be dismissed out of hand"?
No problem. Clearly you have that crippling disability that stops you being able to read your own posts. You can get money off the government for that you know.
Here:
this is irrelevant.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
But, according to RET, the gravitational field on two distant points is not along parallel directions, since it points to the center of the Earth.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
But, according to RET, the gravitational field on two distant points is not along parallel directions, since it points to the center of the Earth.
I know seems to be a deal breaker.
if only there were a branch of mathematics could we consult to account for the angular variation between those lines on a spherical shape of a given radius. ::)
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
But, according to RET, the gravitational field on two distant points is not along parallel directions, since it points to the center of the Earth.
I know seems to be a deal breaker.
if only there were a branch of mathematics could we consult to account for the angular variation between those lines on a spherical shape of a given radius. ::)
But, that would be assuming something that you want to prove. That's no good.
-
One giant bubble level only takes account one point of gravity, in the middle. The rest of it is level because it's a level.
edit: I spelled giant giany.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
But, according to RET, the gravitational field on two distant points is not along parallel directions, since it points to the center of the Earth.
I know seems to be a deal breaker.
if only there were a branch of mathematics could we consult to account for the angular variation between those lines on a spherical shape of a given radius. ::)
But, that would be assuming something that you want to prove. That's no good.
Your critique was relative to RET and lack of parallelism of gravitational field lines. Using RET there is a method to account for this angular difference.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
Sure... and it's nearly impossible to tell if the mirrors are perfectly parallel, as you've pointed out. However, wouldn't the difficulty of aligning the mirrors if the light is curving be noticeable over such a long distance? I mean, the scientist would send the collimated beam of light off to the distant mirror, and align the distant mirror so the light bounces back. He would probably notice if he had to tilt that mirror an extremely odd angle relative to the direction of propagation near the distant mirror, which he would assume is the same as the direction that the beam left the source.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
But, according to RET, the gravitational field on two distant points is not along parallel directions, since it points to the center of the Earth.
I know seems to be a deal breaker.
if only there were a branch of mathematics could we consult to account for the angular variation between those lines on a spherical shape of a given radius. ::)
But, that would be assuming something that you want to prove. That's no good.
Your critique was relative to RET and lack of parallelism of gravitational field lines. Using RET there is a method to account for this angular difference.
Yeah, but remember, we need the parallel mirrors to show light travels in parallel lines on a RE. ;)
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
GIANT BUBBLE LEVEL.
But, according to RET, the gravitational field on two distant points is not along parallel directions, since it points to the center of the Earth.
I know seems to be a deal breaker.
if only there were a branch of mathematics could we consult to account for the angular variation between those lines on a spherical shape of a given radius. ::)
But, that would be assuming something that you want to prove. That's no good.
Your critique was relative to RET and lack of parallelism of gravitational field lines. Using RET there is a method to account for this angular difference.
Yeah, but remember, we need the parallel mirrors to show light travels in parallel lines on a RE. ;)
Parallelism which can be achieved.
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
Use a laser beam to bounce perfectly between them, when it does they are parallel.
"Aha!" I hear you say. "Bendy light would make it look as if they are parallel when they are not!"
Simply solved. Take the apparatus and rotate it 180 degrees so both mirrors are upside down. If the light still bounces perfectly, light is not bendy.
See the key thing about bendy light is it has a sense of what is up and what is down. It would always bend one way. Normal proper light doesnt.
Parsifal will pretend not to understand this experiment, I predict.
-
No, the key thing is that you don't understand bendy light.
-
Light accelerates up. Seems pretty simple.
His experiment would work you know. Same with the 30 mile light in a tunnel with mirrors. If light bended, doesn't it bend up? So even if the mirrors were just made perp to the earth, it wouldn't work.
-
light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.
-
They don't have to be projectiles. If something changes direction, it is accelerating in velocity.
Skeleton has come up with the most genius idea I have heard so far (well done) and if you can't find a way to disprove the experiment's theoretical results, Parsec, it seems he has picked a giant hole in the theory.
Just quickly, how does light know which way is up? Gravity? or atmosphere? (I don't have the time or patience to dive into 12 different topics of 5 pages in length each to find the answer)
-
...if you can't find a way to disprove the experiment's theoretical results,...
this is an oxymoron.
-
So how does light bend? Why was it called an electromagnetic accelerator? Is this an intrinsic value of all light?
-
Look I may not be a linguist, but I'm sure you can figure out what I mean. Instead of picking holes in my syntax, try staying on topic for once
-
well, that was the essence of your post. The fact of the matter is, and this is what we were trying to point out to you, that I am unaware of an experiment being made to show the rectilinear propagation of light without any assumptions about the shape of the Earth.
-
The shape of the earth doesn't need to be taken into account if the mirrors are measured against each other, not the ground.
-
light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.
But the light would always bend upward relative to the surface of the Earth, yes?
-
light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.
But the light would always bend upward relative to the surface of the Earth, yes?
What do you mean by "bend upward"?
-
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it. In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
How would one notice the curvature of light if they have two mirrors aligned so that light bounces back and forth between them?
They're not aligned to light bounces back and forth, they are aligned to be parallel. It just happens that light moves in a straight line, so it WOULD bounce back and forth.
I guess the question Parsifal asked to everyone was, how do they allign mirrors to be perfectly parallel?
Use a laser beam to bounce perfectly between them, when it does they are parallel.
"Aha!" I hear you say. "Bendy light would make it look as if they are parallel when they are not!"
Simply solved. Take the apparatus and rotate it 180 degrees so both mirrors are upside down. If the light still bounces perfectly, light is not bendy.
See the key thing about bendy light is it has a sense of what is up and what is down. It would always bend one way. Normal proper light doesnt.
Parsifal will pretend not to understand this experiment, I predict.
I already proposed this. The problem is you require the two mirrors to be rotated around a common axis for them to remain 'parallel'. I proposed mounting them on a rigid structural member, but this introduces the deflection of the beam into the equation and makes the experiment less likely to succeed:
I am experimenting with models of bendy light at the moment. I am devising a test to put an upper limit on some of the bending equation parameters:
y=A*x^(4/3)
or perhaps:
y=B*x^2
or even:
y=sec(x/C)
At the moment the test involves two mirrors separated by 1m, a laser pointer aimed through a small hole in the back one of the mirrors, and a semi-rigid structural beam. The idea is to get the mirrors lined up so that the laser passes through the hole in mirror 1, bounces off mirror 2, and goes back into the hole in mirror 1. This can be accomplished with straight or bendy light, and one would have to carefully measure the distance between the tops and bottoms of the mirrors to tell the difference. My plan instead is to turn the apparatus upside down and observe if the laser still goes into the hole. If it does, this will put an upper limit on the value of the bendy parameters A, B, or C (or any future bendy parameters).
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/4175240059_727cc08c5d_o.jpg)
The purple line is the static deflection of the beam. It is clear from this picture that the support beam bending will put the laser further out of alignment and prevent it from going back into the hole. Because of this, a result where the laser goes back into the hole still puts a conservative upper limit on the bendy parameters. I suspect that the the beam deflection will be small, though I have yet to run the numbers.
To help me out it would be nice to know the expected height of the sun and the horizontal distance to an observer that would see it as on the horizon. This would allow me to predict if my test will be able to resolve the expected bendy-ness. Theoretically the accuracy of the test depends on the support beam deflection, the rigidity of the attachment between the mirrors and the support, and the size of the laser hole.
-
I ran the numbers on the above proposed test and found the following would be required:
-a beam between 10m-15m
-a hole in the first mirror near 1mm
-a device to rotate the second mirror until visual 'parallel-ism' is achieved, and then to rigidly fix it to the beam
With the above parameters I a successful test would limit the bendy coefficient in an equation of y=A*x^(4/3) to be less than 5*10^-4, but this still would not rule out bendy light, because the expected bendy coefficient to trick us into thinking the Earth is flat is less than this (around 10^-5 or 10^-6). I haven't figured out exactly what the bendy coefficient A would need to be to lead to horizon and round earth observations. I was working on this before exams last semester but kind of forgot about it. Perhaps if I have more free time I will take it up again.
If anyone wants the Matlab code I am using to simulate this I can email it to you.
-
Steve, let's try it like this. Regardless of the shape of the earth, the mirrors must be exactly parallel to each other otherwise you can not get the many reflections required for the experiment to work. If light does bend as you propose, then it would be impossible to arrange the mirrors so that you could get many reflections as is commonly observed.
Incorrect.
Nobody has yet responded to my speed of light measurement argument. Foucault measured the speed of light by bouncing a beam of light off of a mirror placed 30 miles away. The curvature of light should have been extremely noticeable at this distance, and yet he didn't have to account for it.
I'll bet he had to place the second one above the horizon as seen from the first.
In addition, if the path of the light is curved, the distance he used in his calculations would have been incorrect by a fairly large margin. However, he was able to measure the speed of light with an error of only 5% relative to the currently accepted value.
Where are you getting this "fairly large margin" idea from? Light doesn't suddenly turn into a twentieth degree polynomial after a couple of kilometres, you know. In fact, the discrepancy would be no greater than that expected if he measured the distance along the surface of a round Earth rather than compensating for the light moving straight - and compensating for that would nullify any discrepancy in either model.
Could you please bold the specific part where I said that "fusion from the sun ... should be dismissed out of hand"?
No problem. Clearly you have that crippling disability that stops you being able to read your own posts. You can get money off the government for that you know.
Here:
this is irrelevant.
Nope.
Sure... and it's nearly impossible to tell if the mirrors are perfectly parallel, as you've pointed out. However, wouldn't the difficulty of aligning the mirrors if the light is curving be noticeable over such a long distance? I mean, the scientist would send the collimated beam of light off to the distant mirror, and align the distant mirror so the light bounces back. He would probably notice if he had to tilt that mirror an extremely odd angle relative to the direction of propagation near the distant mirror, which he would assume is the same as the direction that the beam left the source.
Again with your "extremely odd angle"... just how extreme do you think bendy light is?
Use a laser beam to bounce perfectly between them, when it does they are parallel.
"Aha!" I hear you say. "Bendy light would make it look as if they are parallel when they are not!"
Simply solved. Take the apparatus and rotate it 180 degrees so both mirrors are upside down. If the light still bounces perfectly, light is not bendy.
See the key thing about bendy light is it has a sense of what is up and what is down. It would always bend one way. Normal proper light doesnt.
You're proposing rotating a very large apparatus by a very large angle. How are you going to ensure that the mirrors remain in the same position relative to each other, and more importantly what control are you going to use to confirm that straight light would be unaffected?
Skeleton has come up with the most genius idea I have heard so far (well done) and if you can't find a way to disprove the experiment's theoretical results, Parsec, it seems he has picked a giant hole in the theory.
So your experiment can be assumed to produce the results you want it to until we prove otherwise? You don't even need to perform it first?
-
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/4175240059_727cc08c5d_o.jpg)
Now, could you please depict the analogous arrangement of your apparatus on a RE?
-
Now, could you please depict the analogous arrangement of your apparatus on a RE?
This experiment is independent of the Earth's shape. The beamThe hinged support points of the beam only touches the ground at two points, which should be as close to the same elevation as possible.
-
Now, could you please depict the analogous arrangement of your apparatus on a RE?
This experiment is independent of the Earth's shape. The beam only touches the ground at two points, which should be as close to the same elevation as possible.
Yeah, and how do you plan to achieve that on a RE?
-
Now, could you please depict the analogous arrangement of your apparatus on a RE?
This experiment is independent of the Earth's shape. The beam only touches the ground at two points, which should be as close to the same elevation as possible.
Yeah, and how do you plan to achieve that on a RE?
The beam is not sitting on the ground, it is elevated so that the mirrors don't get smooshed when it is rotated. The center web of the beam would have a rod welded to it so that it could be rotated axially. The hinged supports are shown by the triangles on the left and right side of the beam. This is a common symbol in engineering, but I suppose not so common elsewhere.
-
But the drawing of the light ray according to FE implies that the beam is horizontal? How do you plan on insuring it's horizontal if it's not touching the ground?
-
You're proposing rotating a very large apparatus by a very large angle. How are you going to ensure that the mirrors remain in the same position relative to each other, and more importantly what control are you going to use to confirm that straight light would be unaffected?
1. Tight bolts. Welding. Careful construction.
2. Straight light, by definition of what straight light is, has to be unaffected. If it is affected, it's not straight light.
-
But the drawing of the light ray according to FE implies that the beam is horizontal? How do you plan on insuring it's horizontal if it's not touching the ground?
I see what you are saying. For this experiment its not as important that the beam is perfectly horizontal, only very straight to achieve a common axial rotation of the two mirrors. Of course, if you tilt the whole experiment at some different angle then all the math changes with the angle of the laser reflecting off the mirrors and whatnot. This will become a source of error in the experiment, and likely limited by how trusty a bubble level can be. The beams deflection will also reverse when it is turned, and this has to be taken into account as well.
You can see why I gave up on it initially. It requires a lot of book keeping.
-
1. Tight bolts. Welding. Careful construction.
Sounds like quite an engineering project.
2. Straight light, by definition of what straight light is, has to be unaffected. If it is affected, it's not straight light.
You misunderstand me. What control will you use to eliminate all possibility of uncontrolled variables influencing the result?
-
You're proposing rotating a very large apparatus by a very large angle. How are you going to ensure that the mirrors remain in the same position relative to each other, and more importantly what control are you going to use to confirm that straight light would be unaffected?
1. Tight bolts. Welding. Careful construction.
2. Straight light, by definition of what straight light is, has to be unaffected. If it is affected, it's not straight light.
Ya, deciding whether or not the light is unaffected is the hard part. You can think up the experiment with little cost (only your time), but actually implementing it is tricky.
-
Nope.
OMG you just totally won the debate with that cleverly crafted riposte!
Go away lame troll. Come back when you've got some brains and a bit less idiot denial.
Ya, deciding whether or not the light is unaffected is the hard part. You can think up the experiment with little cost (only your time), but actually implementing it is tricky.
We can't build straight things anymore?
-
We can't build straight things anymore?
I dunno... if only we had technology available like laser levels...
-
Where are you getting this "fairly large margin" idea from? Light doesn't suddenly turn into a twentieth degree polynomial after a couple of kilometres, you know. In fact, the discrepancy would be no greater than that expected if he measured the distance along the surface of a round Earth rather than compensating for the light moving straight - and compensating for that would nullify any discrepancy in either model.
I would think the margin would be fairly large over the 30 miles needed for his experiment. He would measure the speed of light as being slower than it actually is, as he is expecting a straight line when he is actually getting a curve.
Edit: Sorry, it was actually 20 miles. That's still a very long distance though.
edit edit: I just thought of another thing. Is the curvature of the light path itself constant? Wouldn't it have to change over a certain distance, as you claim that the light starts out vertically downward from the Sun and gradually curves outward and upward to account for the horizon? How then can I bounce a beam of light between two mirrors at all? If the radius of curvature changes over time or distance, this wouldn't be possible unless I continually adjusted the mirrors.
-
We can't build straight things anymore?
I dunno... if only we had technology available like laser levels...
You people are so dense. What actually does a laser level employ?
-
We can't build straight things anymore?
I dunno... if only we had technology available like laser levels...
If light does bend, a laser level will be of no help because it won't actually be level. The experiment itself uses a laser to see IF it is indeed, level.
-
We can't build straight things anymore?
I dunno... if only we had technology available like laser levels...
If light does bend, a laser level will be of no help because it won't actually be level. The experiment itself uses a laser to see IF it is indeed, level.
Perhaps a bad example, but my point is we have technology that allows accurate measurements of something being level. Another example i suppose would be an electric water leveler. Anyone know how accurate they are over long distances?
-
We can't build straight things anymore?
I dunno... if only we had technology available like laser levels...
I think we can manage without laser levels.
-
We can't build straight things anymore?
I dunno... if only we had technology available like laser levels...
I think we can manage without laser levels.
Then propose an experimental setup, and please include diagrams.
-
OMG you just totally won the debate with that cleverly crafted riposte!
Go away lame troll. Come back when you've got some brains and a bit less idiot denial.
I'm not the one who can't distinguish between the statements "what you are saying is irrelevant" and "your model is wrong".
I would think the margin would be fairly large over the 30 miles needed for his experiment. He would measure the speed of light as being slower than it actually is, as he is expecting a straight line when he is actually getting a curve.
As I pointed out already, compensating for the Earth's curvature would be equivalent to compensating for bendy light on a flat Earth.
I just thought of another thing. Is the curvature of the light path itself constant? Wouldn't it have to change over a certain distance, as you claim that the light starts out vertically downward from the Sun and gradually curves outward and upward to account for the horizon? How then can I bounce a beam of light between two mirrors at all? If the radius of curvature changes over time or distance, this wouldn't be possible unless I continually adjusted the mirrors.
The curvature of the light depends solely on the angle between its direction of propagation and the horizontal. However, it is symmetrical - that is to say, light going up at a certain angle bends at the same rate as light going down at the same angle - so no, continual adjustment would not be necessary. The light would travel the same path from A to B as it would from B to A.
-
Then why does it bend? So light bends up and down, just because you say it does? This is the big hole which BLT cannot explain, reflections of light don't bend (we know this, radar).
-
I'm not the one who can't distinguish between the statements "what you are saying is irrelevant" and "your model is wrong".
But you are the one that gives one word answers. Glad we got that sorted.
-
Then why does it bend? So light bends up and down, just because you say it does? This is the big hole which BLT cannot explain, reflections of light don't bend (we know this, radar).
I will not argue that bendy light on a flat earth has any better explanation than straight light on a round earth, until I can come up with some kind of model.
What I am arguing is that a very precise experiment would be required to prove one or the other. I have proposed such an experiment, which I think could perhaps meet the required resolution, however it is still in development.
-
Why did you quote me? According to Parsifal, light will bend up and down. Don't say it is the reflection because light is always reflecting around. So this theory is not coherent.
Nice job Parsifal.
-
OMG you just totally won the debate with that cleverly crafted riposte!
Go away lame troll. Come back when you've got some brains and a bit less idiot denial.
I'm not the one who can't distinguish between the statements "what you are saying is irrelevant" and "your model is wrong".
I would think the margin would be fairly large over the 30 miles needed for his experiment. He would measure the speed of light as being slower than it actually is, as he is expecting a straight line when he is actually getting a curve.
As I pointed out already, compensating for the Earth's curvature would be equivalent to compensating for bendy light on a flat Earth.
I just thought of another thing. Is the curvature of the light path itself constant? Wouldn't it have to change over a certain distance, as you claim that the light starts out vertically downward from the Sun and gradually curves outward and upward to account for the horizon? How then can I bounce a beam of light between two mirrors at all? If the radius of curvature changes over time or distance, this wouldn't be possible unless I continually adjusted the mirrors.
The curvature of the light depends solely on the angle between its direction of propagation and the horizontal. However, it is symmetrical - that is to say, light going up at a certain angle bends at the same rate as light going down at the same angle - so no, continual adjustment would not be necessary. The light would travel the same path from A to B as it would from B to A.
I'm making a diagram to show you why you are wrong. Please be patient.
-
Then why does it bend? So light bends up and down, just because you say it does? This is the big hole which BLT cannot explain, reflections of light don't bend (we know this, radar).
No, it bends up, not down. Reflections, including radar, bend too.
-
Parsifal, my diagram would work better if I knew what you meant by reflection bend, too.
Do you agree that the angle between the incident line of light hitting a smooth mirror and a line perpendicular to the mirror at the point the light hits is equal to the angle between the reflected line of light and the same perpendicular line?
-
Do you agree that the angle between the incident line of light hitting a smooth mirror and a line perpendicular to the mirror at the point the light hits is equal to the angle between the reflected line of light and the same perpendicular line?
Yes.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
Meaning that wouldn't you be able to see the results of the test pretty quickly as the bend in the light would become more drastic? And since the laser is moving pretty quickly even a bend of nanometers would add up quickly.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
Meaning that wouldn't you be able to see the results of the test pretty quickly as the bend in the light would become more drastic? And since the laser is moving pretty quickly even a bend of nanometers would add up quickly.
The problem with the experiment, though, is that if you did it perfectly horizontally, the first reflection, bendy or not, would probably not hit a reflective surface but the original source. You'd have to start with a slight upward or downward angle. Actually, with a slight downward angle, wouldn't bendy light turn around and begin moving upwards?
-
Alternatively use laser ranging to measure the distance between two points.
According to Paristroll, light bends only in one axis so rotating the equipment from horizontal (max bending) to vertical (no bending) will vary the laser range recorded. A separation between emitter and receiver of a metre or so should be enough.
Case closed.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
Meaning that wouldn't you be able to see the results of the test pretty quickly as the bend in the light would become more drastic? And since the laser is moving pretty quickly even a bend of nanometers would add up quickly.
The problem with the experiment, though, is that if you did it perfectly horizontally, the first reflection, bendy or not, would probably not hit a reflective surface but the original source. You'd have to start with a slight upward or downward angle. Actually, with a slight downward angle, wouldn't bendy light turn around and begin moving upwards?
That would be the way you'd tell if light bends or not. If you see only one beam of light, then you know that light doesn't bend.
If you hundreds of reflections on the mirrors (or even a vertical line going up then since it would only be bending a few nanometers so our eyes would think it is a continuous line?) then you know that light bends.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
Meaning that wouldn't you be able to see the results of the test pretty quickly as the bend in the light would become more drastic? And since the laser is moving pretty quickly even a bend of nanometers would add up quickly.
The problem with the experiment, though, is that if you did it perfectly horizontally, the first reflection, bendy or not, would probably not hit a reflective surface but the original source. You'd have to start with a slight upward or downward angle. Actually, with a slight downward angle, wouldn't bendy light turn around and begin moving upwards?
That would be the way you'd tell if light bends or not. If you see only one beam of light, then you know that light doesn't bend.
If you hundreds of reflections on the mirrors (or even a vertical line going up then since it would only be bending a few nanometers so our eyes would think it is a continuous line?) then you know that light bends.
I'm trying to make the experiment easier, so I'm not talking about a huge distance. With a real life experiment, the light bent over the distance to the far end and back probably wouldn't be enough to stop it from hitting where the hole was drilled for the laser to shine through. Given less than a degree downwards, straight line would reflect back and forth until it hit the bottom. Bendy light would begin to bend up, and eventually stop moving downward all together.
-
Then why does it bend? So light bends up and down, just because you say it does? This is the big hole which BLT cannot explain, reflections of light don't bend (we know this, radar).
No, it bends up, not down. Reflections, including radar, bend too.
If light bends up, how do you explain two mirrors reflecting light back and forth? It should bend up and up each reflection until you can't see it.
Also if the radar reflection bends up, then the radar image would be heavily distorted compared to up close. This doesn't happen. Ergo, light does not bend.
There are many applications of light that require light to bounce back and forth without bending.
OMG you just totally won the debate with that cleverly crafted riposte!
Go away lame troll. Come back when you've got some brains and a bit less idiot denial.
I'm not the one who can't distinguish between the statements "what you are saying is irrelevant" and "your model is wrong".
I would think the margin would be fairly large over the 30 miles needed for his experiment. He would measure the speed of light as being slower than it actually is, as he is expecting a straight line when he is actually getting a curve.
As I pointed out already, compensating for the Earth's curvature would be equivalent to compensating for bendy light on a flat Earth.
I just thought of another thing. Is the curvature of the light path itself constant? Wouldn't it have to change over a certain distance, as you claim that the light starts out vertically downward from the Sun and gradually curves outward and upward to account for the horizon? How then can I bounce a beam of light between two mirrors at all? If the radius of curvature changes over time or distance, this wouldn't be possible unless I continually adjusted the mirrors.
The curvature of the light depends solely on the angle between its direction of propagation and the horizontal. However, it is symmetrical - that is to say, light going up at a certain angle bends at the same rate as light going down at the same angle - so no, continual adjustment would not be necessary. The light would travel the same path from A to B as it would from B to A.
Light would not be able to reflect back and forth if it bended. You say that light can do that, so it must bend up and down to satisfy our evidence for no reason other than to help you. Also you contradict yourself here.
Nice parsifal, classic style.
-
Meaning that wouldn't you be able to see the results of the test pretty quickly as the bend in the light would become more drastic? And since the laser is moving pretty quickly even a bend of nanometers would add up quickly.
The problem with the experiment, though, is that if you did it perfectly horizontally, the first reflection, bendy or not, would probably not hit a reflective surface but the original source. You'd have to start with a slight upward or downward angle. Actually, with a slight downward angle, wouldn't bendy light turn around and begin moving upwards?
That would be the way you'd tell if light bends or not. If you see only one beam of light, then you know that light doesn't bend.
If you hundreds of reflections on the mirrors (or even a vertical line going up then since it would only be bending a few nanometers so our eyes would think it is a continuous line?) then you know that light bends.
I'm trying to make the experiment easier, so I'm not talking about a huge distance. With a real life experiment, the light bent over the distance to the far end and back probably wouldn't be enough to stop it from hitting where the hole was drilled for the laser to shine through. Given less than a degree downwards, straight line would reflect back and forth until it hit the bottom. Bendy light would begin to bend up, and eventually stop moving downward all together.
If you sent the laser through a one-way mirror you wouldn't need to worry about drilling a hole.
-
Meaning that wouldn't you be able to see the results of the test pretty quickly as the bend in the light would become more drastic? And since the laser is moving pretty quickly even a bend of nanometers would add up quickly.
The problem with the experiment, though, is that if you did it perfectly horizontally, the first reflection, bendy or not, would probably not hit a reflective surface but the original source. You'd have to start with a slight upward or downward angle. Actually, with a slight downward angle, wouldn't bendy light turn around and begin moving upwards?
That would be the way you'd tell if light bends or not. If you see only one beam of light, then you know that light doesn't bend.
If you hundreds of reflections on the mirrors (or even a vertical line going up then since it would only be bending a few nanometers so our eyes would think it is a continuous line?) then you know that light bends.
I'm trying to make the experiment easier, so I'm not talking about a huge distance. With a real life experiment, the light bent over the distance to the far end and back probably wouldn't be enough to stop it from hitting where the hole was drilled for the laser to shine through. Given less than a degree downwards, straight line would reflect back and forth until it hit the bottom. Bendy light would begin to bend up, and eventually stop moving downward all together.
If you sent the laser through a one-way mirror you wouldn't need to worry about drilling a hole.
One way mirrors aren't as reflective as as a single mirror, but it would also work, I guess. Lemme look a few things up.
"The same type of mirror, when used in an optical instrument, is called a half-silvered mirror or beam splitter. Its purpose is quite different: to split a beam of light so that part, usually about half, passes straight through, while the other part is reflected. In a typical scientific application the two resulting beams are made to interfere after traversing different paths. An unusual single-lens reflex camera used a half-silvered mirror to create an image of the scene both in the film plane and in the viewfinder."
-
People seem to be overestimating the rate of curvature. Yes, if you deflected the beam down by a very small angle in the two mirrors apparatus it would eventually bend to come back up, but you would need to be able to measure very small angles (on the order of arc seconds) with very small uncertainties to be able to perform any sort of quantitative analysis. Furthermore, quantum mechanics imposes a fundamental limit on the minimum distance over which bending can be observed because the product of the deflections in position and momentum would need to exceed ℏ/2 in order to overcome the fundamental uncertainty involved. If the distance between the mirrors is less than this, the light will not bend between reflections.
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
Yes.
If light bends up, how do you explain two mirrors reflecting light back and forth? It should bend up and up each reflection until you can't see it.
Also if the radar reflection bends up, then the radar image would be heavily distorted compared to up close. This doesn't happen. Ergo, light does not bend.
There are many applications of light that require light to bounce back and forth without bending.
Light would not be able to reflect back and forth if it bended. You say that light can do that, so it must bend up and down to satisfy our evidence for no reason other than to help you. Also you contradict yourself here.
Nice parsifal, classic style.
There's nothing wrong with light bouncing back and forth while bending up if the mirrors aren't parallel.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
You should look at the diagram of the experiment I proposed. In Parsifal's model of light, light bends with an even function to the vertical, such as y=A*x^(4/3). If you assume that the light path follows this equation, all you need is for the second mirror to be perpendicular to the path of the light, and it will reflect the light right back to its source. The light in this model does not bend with some constant curvature as it travels away from its source. If it is emitted at some angle to the horizontal, its curvature after traveling some horizontal distance will be much less than if it is directed horizontally.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
You should look at the diagram of the experiment I proposed. In Parsifal's model of light, light bends with an even function to the vertical, such as y=A*x^(4/3). If you assume that the light path follows this equation, all you need is for the second mirror to be perpendicular to the path of the light, and it will reflect the light right back to its source. The light in this model does not bend with some constant curvature as it travels away from its source. If it is emitted at some angle to the horizontal, its curvature after traveling some horizontal distance will be much less than if it is directed horizontally.
I get that if you had them bent slightly, it would send it right back. But the degree that you would have to bend the mirrors at would be pretty small over a short distance. With reflection back and forth, the light would bend each time if light were bendy, and giving it a slight start at a downward angle, straight light would continue bouncing back and forth downward with even and constant gaps between hits. Bendy light would start at a slightly downward angle and be accelerated to bend upwards, decreasing the angle it would bend each time until it was horizontal, and at that point it would turn around and begin to back up between the two mirrors.
When I get my photoshop working a bit better I'll be able to show what I mean more clearly.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
You should look at the diagram of the experiment I proposed. In Parsifal's model of light, light bends with an even function to the vertical, such as y=A*x^(4/3). If you assume that the light path follows this equation, all you need is for the second mirror to be perpendicular to the path of the light, and it will reflect the light right back to its source. The light in this model does not bend with some constant curvature as it travels away from its source. If it is emitted at some angle to the horizontal, its curvature after traveling some horizontal distance will be much less than if it is directed horizontally.
I get that if you had them bent slightly, it would send it right back. But the degree that you would have to bend the mirrors at would be pretty small over a short distance. With reflection back and forth, the light would bend each time if light were bendy, and giving it a slight start at a downward angle, straight light would continue bouncing back and forth downward with even and constant gaps between hits. Bendy light would start at a slightly downward angle and be accelerated to bend upwards, decreasing the angle it would bend each time until it was horizontal, and at that point it would turn around and begin to back up between the two mirrors.
When I get my photoshop working a bit better I'll be able to show what I mean more clearly.
There would be no cumulative deviation from the path. Just take for example a parabola (or any even function). Draw two perpendicular lines anywhere along it. If the light bounces between those two mirrors it will stay on the same path forever, if it is following that path. Of course the physical reason for it following some random even function path is not being discussed here, only how it would be observed if it did. I believe that someone is working on a theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration, but until I see it I have no way to critique. Until then I can only deal with observations and speculate what kind of model they might fit.
-
So let's do a thought experiment really quick to make sure my brain is working.
Two parallel, vertical, perfectly reflective mirrors are a distance apart. One has a tiny hole drilled through to allow a TINY laser beam to enter between the two mirrors that is perfectly horizontal.
With straight light, it will go straight to the other mirror, hit it at at a perpendicular, and reflect straight back upon itself.
With bendy light, it would have bent slightly, and finding the tangent line at the point it hits the mirror, we could calculate the angle at which it would reflect off the mirror. This angle would NOT reflect the light off horizontally, so the angle that the tangent line of the curve hits the mirror at should increase with each reflection.
You should look at the diagram of the experiment I proposed. In Parsifal's model of light, light bends with an even function to the vertical, such as y=A*x^(4/3). If you assume that the light path follows this equation, all you need is for the second mirror to be perpendicular to the path of the light, and it will reflect the light right back to its source. The light in this model does not bend with some constant curvature as it travels away from its source. If it is emitted at some angle to the horizontal, its curvature after traveling some horizontal distance will be much less than if it is directed horizontally.
I get that if you had them bent slightly, it would send it right back. But the degree that you would have to bend the mirrors at would be pretty small over a short distance. With reflection back and forth, the light would bend each time if light were bendy, and giving it a slight start at a downward angle, straight light would continue bouncing back and forth downward with even and constant gaps between hits. Bendy light would start at a slightly downward angle and be accelerated to bend upwards, decreasing the angle it would bend each time until it was horizontal, and at that point it would turn around and begin to back up between the two mirrors.
When I get my photoshop working a bit better I'll be able to show what I mean more clearly.
There would be no cumulative deviation from the path. Just take for example a parabola (or any even function). Draw two perpendicular lines anywhere along it. If the light bounces between those two mirrors it will stay on the same path forever, if it is following that path. Of course the physical reason for it following some random even function path is not being discussed here, only how it would be observed if it did. I believe that someone is working on a theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration, but until I see it I have no way to critique. Until then I can only deal with observations and speculate what kind of model they might fit.
I'm talking about parallel mirrors, you're talking about mirrors aligned with the curve of bendy light.
With the curved mirrors, they'd have to be a decent distance apart to get a good idea of the curve of light, and then any adjustments made to the mirrors could be chalked up to either:
a. bendy light, or
b. earth is round, so straight light has to be bent.
At least, until we go and flip your rig, which changes the whole thing.
My experiment would involve two much closer, parallel, vertical mirrors.
-
...
There would be no cumulative deviation from the path. Just take for example a parabola (or any even function). Draw two perpendicular lines anywhere along it. If the light bounces between those two mirrors it will stay on the same path forever, if it is following that path. Of course the physical reason for it following some random even function path is not being discussed here, only how it would be observed if it did. I believe that someone is working on a theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration, but until I see it I have no way to critique. Until then I can only deal with observations and speculate what kind of model they might fit.
I'm talking about parallel mirrors, you're talking about mirrors aligned with the curve of bendy light.
With the curved mirrors, they'd have to be a decent distance apart to get a good idea of the curve of light, and then any adjustments made to the mirrors could be chalked up to either:
a. bendy light, or
b. earth is round, so straight light has to be bent.
At least, until we go and flip your rig, which changes the whole thing.
My experiment would involve two much closer, parallel, vertical mirrors.
Ahh, I understand now. How will you project a laser into two mirrors that are vertically parallel, yet have the beam be perpendicular to both? If you have a hole in one mirror that you shoot a laser through, the beam (with straight light) will leave through the same hole after bouncing off the opposing mirror, assuming they are truly parallel, very flat, and the laser very tight. There will also be experimental uncertainty in the flatness of the mirror and the parallelism of the mirrors, but that can always be dealt with.
-
My experiment is designed to measure how much light could bend by putting an upper limit on the bendy-ness. This is the same as Fermilab's approach to the Higgs boson. While they wait for the LHC to perhaps discover it, they claim to be 'weighing' it by conducting tests that should force it to appear if it was that weight. By doing this they are putting limits on how much the Higgs weighs, by not observing it under certain conditions.
-
My experiment is designed to measure how much light could bend by putting an upper limit on the bendy-ness. This is the same as Fermilab's approach to the Higgs boson. While they wait for the LHC to perhaps discover it, they claim to be 'weighing' it by conducting tests that should force it to appear if it was that weight. By doing this they are putting limits on how much the Higgs weighs, by not observing it under certain conditions.
That's clever. By the same token can we claim all instances so far noted of light travelling in a straight line count as experiments to show how no bend is observed?
-
My experiment is designed to measure how much light could bend by putting an upper limit on the bendy-ness. This is the same as Fermilab's approach to the Higgs boson. While they wait for the LHC to perhaps discover it, they claim to be 'weighing' it by conducting tests that should force it to appear if it was that weight. By doing this they are putting limits on how much the Higgs weighs, by not observing it under certain conditions.
That's clever. By the same token can we claim all instances so far noted of light travelling in a straight line count as experiments to show how no bend is observed?
Of course, within the bounds of uncertainty under which those measurements were made.
-
...
There would be no cumulative deviation from the path. Just take for example a parabola (or any even function). Draw two perpendicular lines anywhere along it. If the light bounces between those two mirrors it will stay on the same path forever, if it is following that path. Of course the physical reason for it following some random even function path is not being discussed here, only how it would be observed if it did. I believe that someone is working on a theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration, but until I see it I have no way to critique. Until then I can only deal with observations and speculate what kind of model they might fit.
I'm talking about parallel mirrors, you're talking about mirrors aligned with the curve of bendy light.
With the curved mirrors, they'd have to be a decent distance apart to get a good idea of the curve of light, and then any adjustments made to the mirrors could be chalked up to either:
a. bendy light, or
b. earth is round, so straight light has to be bent.
At least, until we go and flip your rig, which changes the whole thing.
My experiment would involve two much closer, parallel, vertical mirrors.
Ahh, I understand now. How will you project a laser into two mirrors that are vertically parallel, yet have the beam be perpendicular to both? If you have a hole in one mirror that you shoot a laser through, the beam (with straight light) will leave through the same hole after bouncing off the opposing mirror, assuming they are truly parallel, very flat, and the laser very tight. There will also be experimental uncertainty in the flatness of the mirror and the parallelism of the mirrors, but that can always be dealt with.
The way you would get around that is to have two parallel mirrors. One will be a normal mirror, and the other will be a one-way mirror. You shoot the laser through the one-way mirror, and the laser will then reflect between the two mirrors in one path back and forth. If light does bend, then the laser beam would go slightly more upwards with each bounce. I don't believe the distance between the mirrors would matter all that much since even if the light one moved a few nanometers per reflection, reflections at the speed of light happen pretty quickly so those nanometers would add up very fast.
I could make a diagram if you want a more clear idea.
-
...
There would be no cumulative deviation from the path. Just take for example a parabola (or any even function). Draw two perpendicular lines anywhere along it. If the light bounces between those two mirrors it will stay on the same path forever, if it is following that path. Of course the physical reason for it following some random even function path is not being discussed here, only how it would be observed if it did. I believe that someone is working on a theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration, but until I see it I have no way to critique. Until then I can only deal with observations and speculate what kind of model they might fit.
I'm talking about parallel mirrors, you're talking about mirrors aligned with the curve of bendy light.
With the curved mirrors, they'd have to be a decent distance apart to get a good idea of the curve of light, and then any adjustments made to the mirrors could be chalked up to either:
a. bendy light, or
b. earth is round, so straight light has to be bent.
At least, until we go and flip your rig, which changes the whole thing.
My experiment would involve two much closer, parallel, vertical mirrors.
Ahh, I understand now. How will you project a laser into two mirrors that are vertically parallel, yet have the beam be perpendicular to both? If you have a hole in one mirror that you shoot a laser through, the beam (with straight light) will leave through the same hole after bouncing off the opposing mirror, assuming they are truly parallel, very flat, and the laser very tight. There will also be experimental uncertainty in the flatness of the mirror and the parallelism of the mirrors, but that can always be dealt with.
The way you would get around that is to have two parallel mirrors. One will be a normal mirror, and the other will be a one-way mirror. You shoot the laser through the one-way mirror, and the laser will then reflect between the two mirrors in one path back and forth. If light does bend, then the laser beam would go slightly more upwards with each bounce. I don't believe the distance between the mirrors would matter all that much since even if the light one moved a few nanometers per reflection, reflections at the speed of light happen pretty quickly so those nanometers would add up very fast.
I could make a diagram if you want a more clear idea.
The light would get less bright each reflection off the one way mirror.
-
Ahh, I understand now. How will you project a laser into two mirrors that are vertically parallel, yet have the beam be perpendicular to both? If you have a hole in one mirror that you shoot a laser through, the beam (with straight light) will leave through the same hole after bouncing off the opposing mirror, assuming they are truly parallel, very flat, and the laser very tight. There will also be experimental uncertainty in the flatness of the mirror and the parallelism of the mirrors, but that can always be dealt with.
The way you would get around that is to have two parallel mirrors. One will be a normal mirror, and the other will be a one-way mirror. You shoot the laser through the one-way mirror, and the laser will then reflect between the two mirrors in one path back and forth. If light does bend, then the laser beam would go slightly more upwards with each bounce. I don't believe the distance between the mirrors would matter all that much since even if the light one moved a few nanometers per reflection, reflections at the speed of light happen pretty quickly so those nanometers would add up very fast.
I could make a diagram if you want a more clear idea.
The light would get less bright each reflection off the one way mirror.
You would still see the effect, it just wouldn't continue forever.
-
Ahh, I understand now. How will you project a laser into two mirrors that are vertically parallel, yet have the beam be perpendicular to both? If you have a hole in one mirror that you shoot a laser through, the beam (with straight light) will leave through the same hole after bouncing off the opposing mirror, assuming they are truly parallel, very flat, and the laser very tight. There will also be experimental uncertainty in the flatness of the mirror and the parallelism of the mirrors, but that can always be dealt with.
The way you would get around that is to have two parallel mirrors. One will be a normal mirror, and the other will be a one-way mirror. You shoot the laser through the one-way mirror, and the laser will then reflect between the two mirrors in one path back and forth. If light does bend, then the laser beam would go slightly more upwards with each bounce. I don't believe the distance between the mirrors would matter all that much since even if the light one moved a few nanometers per reflection, reflections at the speed of light happen pretty quickly so those nanometers would add up very fast.
I could make a diagram if you want a more clear idea.
The light would get less bright each reflection off the one way mirror.
You would still see the effect, it just wouldn't continue forever.
I think lack of ability to control the beam width would be more of an issue as far as resolving what "bent" is as mirrors can be made almost perfectly reflective, especially for a laser. Each reflection would result in a wider and wider beam, which may be enough to skew the results.
-
In the case of a yes/no type experiment, it becomes tricky because you also have to be 100% confident in the flatness and parallelism of the two mirrors, and I don't see how you can do this over any distance. Even MEMS surfaces have imperfections.
-
We don't need to worry about this experiment any more though, because someone did an experiment where neutrinos were fired into the ground and detected on the other side of the planet. So we know the horizon effect is due to curvature, not bendy light.
Oh no, I've just realised this negates Parsifal's reason to exist.
-
Aww, but I was having fun too.
:-[
-
We don't need to worry about this experiment any more though, because someone did an experiment where neutrinos were fired into the ground and detected on the other side of the planet. So we know the horizon effect is due to curvature, not bendy light.
Oh no, I've just realised this negates Parsifal's reason to exist.
Don't ya know neutrinos bend as well? Unicorns drag them along with their horns.
-
We don't need to worry about this experiment any more though, because someone did an experiment where neutrinos were fired into the ground and detected on the other side of the planet. So we know the horizon effect is due to curvature, not bendy light.
Oh no, I've just realised this negates Parsifal's reason to exist.
Don't ya know neutrinos bend as well? Unicorns drag them along with their horns.
Damn, you've just made Parsifal pop back into existence. >:(
-
We don't need to worry about this experiment any more though, because someone did an experiment where neutrinos were fired into the ground and detected on the other side of the planet. So we know the horizon effect is due to curvature, not bendy light.
Source?
-
your kidding right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments
-
your kidding right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments
I asked for a source for the specific experiment Thermal Detonator is referring to, not a comprehensive list of experiments involving neutrinos to sift through. If he's going to make a claim, I expect him to back it up.
-
Well lets start with the big ones,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T2K (is the best one but then im a little biased although technically it has no data yet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINOS
has been running for a few years.
K2K doesn't have a wiki page but if you go on arXiv theres reams of publications. That was the predecessor to T2K now finished and largely decomissioned.
KamLand was a little different but still technically long baseline a guess, a fantastic experiment deffo worth a look, again loads on arXiv.
Nova is starting sometime soon.
ooooo almost forgot CNGS worth a look certainly been running for a while may even have finished, I forget.
Ultimately neutrino factory will fire neutrinos at very large angles into the Earth. For example a bean at CERN (Geneva) could leave the Earth in India.
-
I would like Thermal Detonator to provide me with a specific one so that I can address it in particular.
-
I know I am not TD, but if you really want to discuss neutrinos you should go to the Beam Neutrinos thread. I am sure you all agree that bendy neutrinos would also deserve its own thread.
-
your kidding right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments
I asked for a source for the specific experiment Thermal Detonator is referring to, not a comprehensive list of experiments involving neutrinos to sift through. If he's going to make a claim, I expect him to back it up.
See the link in my signature and then check out the rest of the information posted by ERTW and others in that thread.