You may also want to try it with different angles to see if the intensity alters. As I understand bendy light, it bends more when the light is closer to the plane of the Earth than vertical and bends towards the perpendicular of the plane of the Earth.
But ONLY when the light is coming from the Earth.
You may also want to try it with different angles to see if the intensity alters. As I understand bendy light, it bends more when the light is closer to the plane of the Earth than vertical and bends towards the perpendicular of the plane of the Earth.
But ONLY when the light is coming from the Earth.
The idea is first see if there is any change in luminosity. If so, i'll try different angles. Then i'll try to make some sort of model (something that FE people should do, not me, but I love sciencie and I find this funny). It's not a bad idea, isn't it?
Well the point is that I will not make the experiment unless FE people accept it as proof of existence or no existence of bendy light. That's why I want first to establish a debate about its weak points, etc.
Why not? Because it will take some effort to do. It's not as easy as going to the lab and doing it in half an hour. I have first to get permission and think what to answer to "ok you want to use our lasers, with what purpose?". If I say "to see if light is bent upwards as flat earth theory says" well... that might be funny, so I have to think what to say. I will not do that effort unless it is worthy.
FE people, feel free to talk about my experiment.
So, how do you turn off light bending at will?
Now let's test this theory. How to make a laser "invisible" to bendy light? Easy: facing it vertically. The light will be bouncing up and down in the cavity between the mirrors. This is the direction that lights bends on, therefore light will not bend and will bounce 10 times (example) before hitting the wall of the cavity. If we hold the laser horizontally bendy light phenomena will be at it's maximum, and we'll see 6 bounces. Therefore I claim that:
If I measure the laser's luminosity in both cases I will obtain different values, being higher the vertical one. If I get the same values that means that light does not bend
Following there is my idea with paint (click on the image):
http://www.mypicx.com/03212010/bendy_light/
how do you know it's vertical?
how do you know it's vertical?
So, how do you turn off light bending at will?
If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Well, you say that bendy light is due to refraction at the atmolayer? First time i've heard this.At this point we don't know with certainty. But, if light deflected by the same amount for the same difference in height, then it wouldn't bend, would it? The term 'bendy' implies progressive deflection with height.
In vacuum BL does not work? An airplane gets different "bendy light experience" than a person at earth?
I thought that BL was something like an universal acceleration of EM fields. Please explain me in what consists BL then.
No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
No.No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Let me make sure I understand you're reasoning.
Light will only bends when the light passes through the whole atmosphere?
No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences.
No.No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Let me make sure I understand you're reasoning.
Light will only bends when the light passes through the whole atmosphere?
I'm afraid that even if I said yes, you would not be able to comprehend what that meant since you obviously do not have a clue what a refraction index is.No.No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Let me make sure I understand you're reasoning.
Light will only bends when the light passes through the whole atmosphere?
So it bends based on the atmosphere's index of refraction for various heights?
I've got a simple question: does BL happen in vacuum?Define vacuum.
I've got a simple question: does BL happen in vacuum?Define vacuum.
I'm afraid that even if I said yes, you would not be able to comprehend what that meant since you obviously do not have a clue what a refraction index is.No.No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Let me make sure I understand you're reasoning.
Light will only bends when the light passes through the whole atmosphere?
So it bends based on the atmosphere's index of refraction for various heights?
That copypasta looks delicious, but my point stands unshaken.I'm afraid that even if I said yes, you would not be able to comprehend what that meant since you obviously do not have a clue what a refraction index is.No.No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Let me make sure I understand you're reasoning.
Light will only bends when the light passes through the whole atmosphere?
So it bends based on the atmosphere's index of refraction for various heights?
>_>
The index of refraction is how a light beam will bend through a solid but translucent or transparent objects, such as water, and appear to distort the object. This can easily be seen by putting a pencil in a cup of water. The pencil appears to bend at the surface of the water.
So yes, I know what an index of refraction is.
And yes, I know the atmosphere has a refraction index that changes based on density and temperature of the air.
What I'm trying to figure out is how that matters since we can measure the index refraction of air and calculate the true path of light in the vacuum. Atmospheric refraction is one of the things astronomers try to limit by building large telescopes high up. Less air, less matter for the light to bend.
I'm still trying to figure out what is different between bendy light and simple atmospheric refraction.
That copypasta looks delicious, but my point stands unshaken.
That copypasta looks delicious, but my point stands unshaken.I'm afraid that even if I said yes, you would not be able to comprehend what that meant since you obviously do not have a clue what a refraction index is.No.No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Let me make sure I understand you're reasoning.
Light will only bends when the light passes through the whole atmosphere?
So it bends based on the atmosphere's index of refraction for various heights?
>_>
The index of refraction is how a light beam will bend through a solid but translucent or transparent objects, such as water, and appear to distort the object. This can easily be seen by putting a pencil in a cup of water. The pencil appears to bend at the surface of the water.
So yes, I know what an index of refraction is.
And yes, I know the atmosphere has a refraction index that changes based on density and temperature of the air.
What I'm trying to figure out is how that matters since we can measure the index refraction of air and calculate the true path of light in the vacuum. Atmospheric refraction is one of the things astronomers try to limit by building large telescopes high up. Less air, less matter for the light to bend.
I'm still trying to figure out what is different between bendy light and simple atmospheric refraction.
Yes.I've got a simple question: does BL happen in vacuum?Define vacuum.
In this context i would refeer to a space without air, therefore, without any changes on the refractive index.
Yes.I've got a simple question: does BL happen in vacuum?Define vacuum.
In this context i would refeer to a space without air, therefore, without any changes on the refractive index.
Bendy light does not 'happen'. What happens is that light bends and not proportionally to the height difference but progressively increasing. How high is your apparatus?Yes.I've got a simple question: does BL happen in vacuum?Define vacuum.
In this context i would refeer to a space without air, therefore, without any changes on the refractive index.
Then if bendy light happens in a medium without changes on the ref index it will surely happen inside our resonant cavity, right?
Bendy light does not 'happen'. What happens is that light bends and...
You say that, i.e., if I fire a laser at sealevel and i get that laser bent up ten degrees in 100 meters height (i.e.) and I repeat the same experiment at 5km heigth I would get, say, 20 degrees of desviation at the height of 5100 meters?Yes, that would be the general idea behind what I meant as "progressively increasing deflection", although the numbers are certainly not realistic.
Ok, now we are beggining to understand each other. My experiment would take place at sealevel. According to the BL theory would I be able to detect it? I understand that, the lower you get, the lesser light is bent, therefore I might think that at sealevel no BL phenomena happens. If it's false I should be able to detect BL phenomena with my experiment. If it's true there is a conflict with the ships dissapearing.I never said altitude above sea level is the single variable that determines the bent of the light ray. Come to think of it, we did not even agree what a measure of a bent actually is.
Is my experiment at sealevel able to detect BL phenomena?
Ok, well, I think it would be faster if you tell us what do you know about BL, all of it, if you don't mind.There are plenty of threads discussing Bendy Light Theory. Perhaps you should go through some of them using the search function of the forums before you embark on 'testing' it. Don't you think so?
There are plenty of threads discussing Bendy Light Theory. Perhaps you should go through some of them using the search function of the forums before you embark on 'testing' it. Don't you think so?
There are plenty of threads discussing Bendy Light Theory. Perhaps you should go through some of them using the search function of the forums before you embark on 'testing' it. Don't you think so?
But non of them state anything conclusive. Most involve RoboSteveMcParsiFail dancing about.
If there's a thread that offers up anything which succinctly defines bendy light in a way that doesn't immediately fail then I've not seen it. And I thought bendy light was outlawed by TFES?
Of course I did, but I don't get any equation, or answer better than "unknown" or "we are working on it". Where is the thread that explains bendy ligt properly?A light ray emitted at an angle α with the horizontal in the north-south direction from an altitude y0 traces a trajectory given by (to first approximation):
Of course I did, but I don't get any equation, or answer better than "unknown" or "we are working on it". Where is the thread that explains bendy ligt properly?A light ray emitted at an angle ? with the horizontal in the north-south direction from an altitude y0 traces a trajectory given by (to first approximation):
y = y0 + x*tan ? + ?*(1 + 2*tan2 ?)*x2/(4*L),
where:
L = 107 m.
I agree with all your conclusions, except number 3.
I agree with all your conclusions, except number 3.
Notice that the first two terms in the formula just describe straight propagation of the light ray. So, the third term (quadratic in x) gives the deflection from straight line propagation. Taking alpha = 0, we get that term (Deltay) to be equal to 1 mm, if x is equal to:I agree with all your conclusions, except number 3.
If I understand the proposed experiment correctly, then the light only needs to bend enough to not hit the photo-detector. We are talking probably 1mm or less.
Notice that the first two terms in the formula just describe straight propagation of the light ray. So, the third term (quadratic in x) gives the deflection from straight line propagation. Taking alpha = 0, we get that term (Deltay) to be equal to 1 mm, if x is equal to:I agree with all your conclusions, except number 3.
If I understand the proposed experiment correctly, then the light only needs to bend enough to not hit the photo-detector. We are talking probably 1mm or less.
x = Sqrt[4*L*Deltay/Pi] = Sqrt[4*107 m*10-3 m/3.142] = 1.27*102 m = 127 m
No, bouncing off the light ray has nothing to do with my calculation. We have been through that. My calculation refers to markjo's proposed scheme. It is not what your suggested. Your experiment won't work since the mirrors were aligned parallel by implicitly assuming straight line propagation (see Fabry-Perrot etalon). So, in essence, your experiment will look for misalignment of aligned mirrors.
No, bouncing off the light ray has nothing to do with my calculation. We have been through that. My calculation refers to markjo's proposed scheme. It is not what your suggested. Your experiment won't work since the mirrors were aligned parallel by implicitly assuming straight line propagation (see Fabry-Perrot etalon). So, in essence, your experiment will look for misalignment of aligned mirrors.
That's exactly the point of my experiment! I'll explain better:
1-The more bounces inside resonating cavity the more brighter the laser is.
2-As you said, mirrors are aligned parallel assuming straight line propagation (SLP).
3-Let's say that in SLP light bounces infinite times between mirrors (It's an assumption) producing an intensity of 10
4-If BL phenomena does really happen, light will never bounce infinite times between mirrors since, after a number of bounces, light will hit the wall of the cavity ending his travel. Therefore an intensity of 6 (i.e.) will be detected.
5-We can get rid of BL just holding the laser vertically, therefore a comparison between both cases can be made.
What's wrong here? I still don't get it, or you still don't get it.
Hey parsec if you're so wise about the whole bendy light thing, how it works and how it doesn't, then why don't you tell us how to test it?
... because someone did test it, right?
But, this is not how scientific hypothesis testing is done.
But, this is not how scientific hypothesis testing is done.
Wow, then how should I proceed according to your concept of "scientific hypotesis testing"? Remember that so far I'm only talking about the idea, the basis; not the experiment itself. FE people claim that BL exist. If my experiment works BL exists, if my experiment does not work BL does not exist. Easy.
what is your alternative hypothesis?
Ok, now using BLT, give some quantitative predictions that you actually want to test.what is your alternative hypothesis?
I don't like that way of proving/disproving things, but ok:
Alternative hypotesis: Light does not bend, therefore no luminosity change is detected if we rotate the laser.
Null hypotesis: Light does bend, therefore we detect luminosity change if we rotate the laser.
What else do you need?
I'll do that later, now i'm only talking about the basis.Ideally, yes.
Assuming that I do the numbers and my setup really can produce measurable difference in intensity, will you accept this as a proof of existence/no existence of BL phenomena?
In other words: Do you think that, speaking ideally, there would be diferences in intensity between both cases? Yes or no
Ok, now using BLT, give some quantitative predictions that you actually want to test.
For this experiment, yes, since it is a local one. Namely, we can always parametrize the deflection of the light ray from a straight line. Using formulas from differential geometry (Frenet formulas), a curve can be written as:Ok, now using BLT, give some quantitative predictions that you actually want to test.
Just out of curiosity, has BLT matured enough that quantitative predictions can even be made?
Did anyone ever test this bendy light theory, or are you basically just pulling numbers out of your butt?
What about shining a laser light from the bottom floor of a building and walking away so you can no longer see the bottom of the building?
If light bends below the ground to make the horizon, why would you still be able to see a laser light above your head?
What about shining a laser light from the bottom floor of a building and walking away so you can no longer see the bottom of the building?
If light bends below the ground to make the horizon, why would you still be able to see a laser light above your head?
Anyone?
What about shining a laser light from the bottom floor of a building and walking away so you can no longer see the bottom of the building?
If light bends below the ground to make the horizon, why would you still be able to see a laser light above your head?
Anyone?
To do this you'd have to have a laser that reflects off something. That would require a LOT of smoke machines.
Or a laser so powerful that it causes air to light up.
The air isn't generally clear of impurities. Most laser that are slightly more powerful than the ones you get at the $2 shop will light up dust and stuff in the air. Even outside.What about shining a laser light from the bottom floor of a building and walking away so you can no longer see the bottom of the building?
If light bends below the ground to make the horizon, why would you still be able to see a laser light above your head?
Anyone?
To do this you'd have to have a laser that reflects off something. That would require a LOT of smoke machines.
Or a laser so powerful that it causes air to light up.
BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
All jokes aside...
How will you accurately determine how many times the light is supposed to be reflected in either BLT or otherwise?
What is the control for the experiment?
I think the whole concept is a little hazy....
If you could provide a hypothetical experiment, utilizing actual variables and verifiable constants, you might have something to stand on here.
What I'm saying is give us a fly through of actually conduction the experiment, step by step.
Then let's talk more.
BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
Diagram plz.BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.
Diagram plz.BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.
Diagram plz.BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.
Why?
Diagram plz.BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.
Why?
I don't agree with this assertion either.
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Sure, this might be true if the Earth was round, but if it wasn't round, i don't think this distortion would take place.Diagram plz.BUMP
It's funny. I can prove-disprove BL and no one cme here to support me (but parsec) (also, im talking about FE'rs). Also, I've sent some PM to well known FE'rs asking them to join this debate. No-one answered. I'm starting to think that FE'rs don't really want to know if BL phenomena does really happen...
You can save yourself a lot of time and energy because bendy light would cause positional shifts to stars as they moved nearer and further from the horizon as the night sky rotated, which doesn't happen, so since one of the predicted effects of bendy light is not observed in the real world the whole theory can go in the bin.
Why?
I don't agree with this assertion either.
You don't agree with me? Here's the disproof in a simple point by point format.Quote1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is always the same.
Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?
Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?
I'm trying to figure out why you came to the conclusion that things near the horizon would be distorted, but I can't.
Why is this supposed to be the case?
I haven't been here very long, so maybe this has been covered already, so I'm just wondering.
Okay.Bendy light is only needed if the earth is flat. Why on earth would I be trying to disprove bendy light on a round earth?
Without bendy light there is no sensible explanation left to the flat earthers as to why you can't see over the horizon and why the sun rises and sets. You saying "I don't think this distortion would take place" is essentially you saying "bendy light doesn't happen". An admission of the absence of bendy light either means you have an alternative explanation for sunsets and the horizon or you accept the earth isn't flat.
So which is it?
I'm trying to figure out why you came to the conclusion that things near the horizon would be distorted, but I can't.
Why is this supposed to be the case?
I haven't been here very long, so maybe this has been covered already, so I'm just wondering.
This is the case with Parsifail's "conventional" bendy light theory. As I just realised in the other thread, I'm not quite understanding your theory and thought it was different than it is. Yours is quite different and not subject to the same arguments so forget what I said there.
There is no dust in the mirror. The resonant cavity is near perfectly sealed. Otherwise it wouldn't work. And what we measure is it's luminosity, and it's very easy to do.
There is my step-by-step guide:
1º Post my idea on the forum
2º Get some FE'rs support, so the experiment would be worthy. All I need is that FE'rs say "Oh! Ideally, it will work as a BL detector!". Remember that i'm talking about the idea, none math is done here. WE ARE AT THIS STAGE
3º I'll go to the lab, gather some info about the laser I'll use and post some photos of it, wich clearly shows the model etc etc.
4º I'll do the math, I'll calculate the expeted "bright loss" with BL. If it is detectable with my photometre I'll move to step 5.
5º I'll go to the lab and make the experiment.
6º With the data on my hand I'll tell you if BL does exist or not.
Notice that steps 3-6 need some effort. I'll only move to step 3 if it's worth. So, Mizzle, do you think that there would be any "bright loss" when rotating the laser due to BL as I stated before (remember, I'm not talking about measuring it, i'm only talking about the idea)? Parsec said yes, what do you think about my experiment?
With or without 'bendy light,' conventionial or otherwise, I don't think you'll measure any loss. If you take into consideration that when the light is supposed to be 'bending' in one direction, it should obviously bend an equal amount in the reciprocal. Maybe I don't get the concept of conventional 'bendy light,' so I could be wrong.There is no dust in the mirror. The resonant cavity is near perfectly sealed. Otherwise it wouldn't work. And what we measure is it's luminosity, and it's very easy to do.
There is my step-by-step guide:
1º Post my idea on the forum
2º Get some FE'rs support, so the experiment would be worthy. All I need is that FE'rs say "Oh! Ideally, it will work as a BL detector!". Remember that i'm talking about the idea, none math is done here. WE ARE AT THIS STAGE
3º I'll go to the lab, gather some info about the laser I'll use and post some photos of it, wich clearly shows the model etc etc.
4º I'll do the math, I'll calculate the expeted "bright loss" with BL. If it is detectable with my photometre I'll move to step 5.
5º I'll go to the lab and make the experiment.
6º With the data on my hand I'll tell you if BL does exist or not.
Notice that steps 3-6 need some effort. I'll only move to step 3 if it's worth. So, Mizzle, do you think that there would be any "bright loss" when rotating the laser due to BL as I stated before (remember, I'm not talking about measuring it, i'm only talking about the idea)? Parsec said yes, what do you think about my experiment?
anyone who answers to this? mizzle?
I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.
I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.
Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?
I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.
Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?
Which it doesn't.
I just think that light does so on such a larger scale it merely appears to be straight.
Sort of like how the Earth appears flat looking out ones window?
Which it doesn't.
It does taking away hills and such, but that's because the world is such a vast sphere that we only get to see a very limited amount, which happens to appear flat.
BUMP
BUMP
I agree, its a shame.BUMP
Your bump is, unfortunately, meaningless.
The debate on Bendy light or really anything here is moot. There are people here who say they believe in something but really don't and simply want to incite discussion and frustration from others. I'm sorry to say but you could have the best experiment in the world that proves light doesn't bend and it would change nothing here.
I agree, its a shame.BUMP
Your bump is, unfortunately, meaningless.
The debate on Bendy light or really anything here is moot. There are people here who say they believe in something but really don't and simply want to incite discussion and frustration from others. I'm sorry to say but you could have the best experiment in the world that proves light doesn't bend and it would change nothing here.
You agree that no experiment will change anything about bendy light, no matter how perfect?
You agree that no experiment will change anything about bendy light, no matter how perfect?
The fact that lasers work disproves bendy light, since the Q-factor of the laser cavity would not be high enough to sustain output if the light bent away from the optical axis during operation.
I could name several other experiments which I have performed as a laser physicist which disprove bendy light, but hey, what's the fun in that? I haven't followed a photon from the surface of the Sun to the surface of the Earth, so I can't say for certain what happens in between!
Of course I did, but I don't get any equation, or answer better than "unknown" or "we are working on it". Where is the thread that explains bendy ligt properly?A light ray emitted at an angle ? with the horizontal in the north-south direction from an altitude y0 traces a trajectory given by (to first approximation):
y = y0 + x*tan ? + ?*(1 + 2*tan2 ?)*x2/(4*L),
where:
L = 107 m.
I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
I was referring to the experiment proposed by the OP.sry, wrong thread
I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.
This is Flat Earth Debate. Don't make low-content posts here again, because you'll receive a suspension if you do.
This is Flat Earth Debate. Don't make low-content posts here again, because you'll receive a suspension if you do.
Hey, uh..."Lord" Wilford...this is probably the most worthless post I've seen in this entire thread. Cheers, okay, thanks friend, ur cool.
Please try and make sense in your posts.I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.
*facepalm*
it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Please try and make sense in your posts.I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.
*facepalm*
it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8tNo, it should not.
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8tNo, it should not.
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
Because light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8tNo, it should not.
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
So why would light not drop?
fine, then it goes at what, a large percentage of cBecause light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8tNo, it should not.
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
So why would light not drop?
Light always travels at c. It's just that the value of c varies depending on the medium.fine, then it goes at what, a large percentage of cBecause light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8tNo, it should not.
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
So why would light not drop?
So?fine, then it goes at what, a large percentage of cBecause light does not travel in vacuum near the Earth's surface.Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8tNo, it should not.
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
So why would light not drop?
Light always travels at c. It's just that the value of c varies depending on the medium.
Gee, thanks Captain Obvious. It's funny you would think this was intended for trolling.Light always travels at c. It's just that the value of c varies depending on the medium.
This is true in a Steve McDonald way. It's like saying that there is a speed of corvette. Well the corvette always travels at the speed of corvette. And so on. Ad trollium.
It would be more correct to say that light travels at a percentage of the absolute speed of light, but people rarely say this, and the intent of the original form is understood.
:P
Please try and make sense in your posts.I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.
*facepalm*
it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
Please try and make sense in your posts.I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.
*facepalm*
it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.
Please try and make sense in your posts.I'm not FE, but I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't show exactly what you want to.see my above post. while bendy light maths do create curvature, it is a quadratic, not a circle, which is what you need for the earth to appear curved. also here's one for you, light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,980) essentially, light should now appear to be around one kilometer below the earth. that is unless UA effect light, which invalidates my arguement, yet at the same time invalidates modern physics
That's why it says the relation is only valid at small distances.
*facepalm*
it doesn't matter the distance, the more time elapses, the farther the light shall drop.
OR
is light moved upwards with the UA?
Basically, what I'm asking, is does the UA effect light? light shoots from point 0,0 forward at x'(t)=c earth moves up at y'(t)=9.8t
go forward one hundred seconds, and light is at (100c,0) and the earth is at (0,46,000) essentially, light should now appear to be around 46km below earth
The effects of UA on light would be no different than the effects of gravity on light.
errm Gravity does effect light >.> see gravitational lensing
Ah yes, when talking about the curvature heading away from the viewer.
The curvature from end to end, on the visible horizon, is what I was talking about.
Ah yes, when talking about the curvature heading away from the viewer.
The curvature from end to end, on the visible horizon, is what I was talking about.
Yep. It is. I've seen it standing in a wheat field in Alberta. There is a discernible curve to the horizon.
No, because BLT takes into account the difference in refraction index over large height differences. Your tube has pretty much a uniform refraction index and you do not get the same effect as a true propagation of light through the atmolayer.If you are asking about being perfectly vertical I'll tell you that id does not matter at all if we only want to see bendy light in action. If we want to take precise data it matters, and i'll do my best with the precision of the angles. But bendy light phenomena should be easy to spot without that precission.ORLY? At a length of less than 1 m, you better have precise measurements because your confidence level will be less than 50%, i.e. you will be basically tossing a coin.
But since the light bounces between mirrors thousands of times, wouldn't that translate to a large distance for the light to bend? Sure the net distance would be small, but the travel distance shouldn't be.
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual. I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual. I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
Provide links.
The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one. But can you show some thread where there is any reasonable argument in favor of FE or they have a good point about something in FE? Damn, I shouldn't have asked. I already know the answer - "There is" or silence.Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual. I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
Provide links.
The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one.Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual. I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
Provide links.
The diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one.Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual. I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
Provide links.
So no links?
If you insistThe diameter of the earth and surface area. All the FE map and distance threads, sun spotlight threads, and so on. Just pick some thread in random and there is more than 50% probability that you get one.Either way, any user who has been on this forum for a while have seen threads where the REers have a good point and the FEers refuse to respond for a while, and once they do, their arguments are even worse than usual. I've seen a bunch, but there was one not long ago dealing with a personal experiment someone did.
Provide links.
So no links?