what's wrong with bendy light?

  • 115 Replies
  • 20372 Views
*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #90 on: June 14, 2009, 10:55:35 AM »
What FE doesn't account for is what on earth in the atmosphere causes the amount of refraction that you claim it does to account for the varying amount of light during the day.
Could you please point to the place where I make any quantitative estimates on the "amount of refraction".

?

mazty88

  • 473
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #91 on: June 14, 2009, 11:03:18 AM »
What FE doesn't account for is what on earth in the atmosphere causes the amount of refraction that you claim it does to account for the varying amount of light during the day.
Could you please point to the place where I make any quantitative estimates on the "amount of refraction".
Exactly. You have no figures and my guess is that how much you expect light to 'bend' is untrue, not to mention light doesn't bend, but individual waves are refracted.
If the earth was above us, it'd illuminate everywhere at once. By saying light bends is a way to have sunrise and sunset, yet the actual amount of refraction that'd be needed is unrealisitc, not to mention you have no figures or evidence for it.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #92 on: June 14, 2009, 11:05:57 AM »
What FE doesn't account for is what on earth in the atmosphere causes the amount of refraction that you claim it does to account for the varying amount of light during the day.
Could you please point to the place where I make any quantitative estimates on the "amount of refraction".
Exactly. You have no figures and my guess is that how much you expect light to 'bend' is untrue, not to mention light doesn't bend, but individual waves are refracted.
Thanks very much for guessing.

If the earth was above us, it'd illuminate everywhere at once. By saying light bends is a way to have sunrise and sunset, yet the actual amount of refraction that'd be needed is unrealisitc, not to mention you have no figures or evidence for it.
???

?

mazty88

  • 473
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #93 on: June 14, 2009, 02:01:46 PM »
What FE doesn't account for is what on earth in the atmosphere causes the amount of refraction that you claim it does to account for the varying amount of light during the day.
Could you please point to the place where I make any quantitative estimates on the "amount of refraction".
Exactly. You have no figures and my guess is that how much you expect light to 'bend' is untrue, not to mention light doesn't bend, but individual waves are refracted.
Thanks very much for guessing.

If the earth was above us, it'd illuminate everywhere at once. By saying light bends is a way to have sunrise and sunset, yet the actual amount of refraction that'd be needed is unrealisitc, not to mention you have no figures or evidence for it.
???
Typo - meant sun.
Obviously that was too hard to work out.
As for my guess, i can only guess what you are thinking. DUH.
You got any figures for atmospheric refraction according to FET? How about ANY EVIDENCE for any of your claims which don't dismiss known facts e.g. satellite orbits.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #94 on: June 14, 2009, 02:05:22 PM »
What FE doesn't account for is what on earth in the atmosphere causes the amount of refraction that you claim it does to account for the varying amount of light during the day.
Could you please point to the place where I make any quantitative estimates on the "amount of refraction".

?

mazty88

  • 473
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #95 on: June 14, 2009, 02:10:30 PM »
What FE doesn't account for is what on earth in the atmosphere causes the amount of refraction that you claim it does to account for the varying amount of light during the day.
Could you please point to the place where I make any quantitative estimates on the "amount of refraction".
You haven't you utter spoon. If you come up with a theory, you need facts and/or figures to back it up. You lack both of these.
Your ideas for light bending can be attributed to rayleigh, mie and non selective scattering and so is no proof for FET at all, or bendy light theory, which clearly is bull.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #96 on: June 14, 2009, 02:11:30 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +89/-130
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #97 on: June 14, 2009, 02:27:09 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #98 on: June 14, 2009, 02:27:34 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.

No, that's what you were taught.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +89/-130
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #99 on: June 14, 2009, 02:34:11 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.

No, that's what you were taught.

So you are saying that Snell's Law is wrong?  If you can prove it, then I'm sure that there will be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #100 on: June 14, 2009, 02:36:18 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.

No, that's what you were taught.

So you are saying that Snell's Law is wrong?  If you can prove it, then I'm sure that there will be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I am just saying the refraction index does not necessarily change as you were taught in the RET. And, yes, discovering the mechanisms of light propagation in FET would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in Physics.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +89/-130
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #101 on: June 14, 2009, 02:45:02 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.

No, that's what you were taught.

So you are saying that Snell's Law is wrong?  If you can prove it, then I'm sure that there will be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I am just saying the refraction index does not necessarily change as you were taught in the RET. And, yes, discovering the mechanisms of light propagation in FET would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #102 on: June 14, 2009, 02:50:24 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.

No, that's what you were taught.

So you are saying that Snell's Law is wrong?  If you can prove it, then I'm sure that there will be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I am just saying the refraction index does not necessarily change as you were taught in the RET. And, yes, discovering the mechanisms of light propagation in FET would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

?

mazty88

  • 473
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #103 on: June 14, 2009, 02:52:27 PM »
And, still, it can explain how stars 'set' below the horizon.

Nope.  Refraction causes light to bend the wrong way to cause stars to set below the horizon.

No, that's what you were taught.

So you are saying that Snell's Law is wrong?  If you can prove it, then I'm sure that there will be a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I am just saying the refraction index does not necessarily change as you were taught in the RET. And, yes, discovering the mechanisms of light propagation in FET would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

Do you have any evidence or just trying to speculate how FE could be true if known facts were not true?
Disprove Snells law, then come back with your bendy light idea. Until then, you are just talking out your ass.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +89/-130
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #104 on: June 14, 2009, 03:02:08 PM »
Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

What material is the plasma made of and what is its temerature?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #105 on: June 14, 2009, 03:02:48 PM »
Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

What material is the plasma made of?
Heavy ions and electrons.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +89/-130
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #106 on: June 14, 2009, 03:08:20 PM »
Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

What material is the plasma made of?
Heavy ions and electrons.
Heavy ions of what?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #107 on: June 14, 2009, 03:14:43 PM »
Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

What material is the plasma made of?
Heavy ions and electrons.
Heavy ions of what?
Doesn't matter. You will see that it has quite different properties from the matter composed of non-ionized atoms of the same type.

?

mazty88

  • 473
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #108 on: June 14, 2009, 03:48:45 PM »
Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

What material is the plasma made of?
Heavy ions and electrons.
Heavy ions of what?
Doesn't matter. You will see that it has quite different properties from the matter composed of non-ionized atoms of the same type.
What proof do you have?



*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45116
  • +89/-130
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #111 on: June 14, 2009, 05:08:29 PM »
Do you agree that refraction causes light to bend as described by Snell's Law?  If so, then the more optically dense medium of the earth's atmolayer (as opposed to the near vacuum of space) will cause light from stars to appear higher than they actually are, not lower as would be required in FET.

optically dense = higher value for n (refraction index)
density = mass per unit volume.

Think of a rarified plasma. What is its index od refraction?

What material is the plasma made of?
Heavy ions and electrons.
Heavy ions of what?
Doesn't matter. You will see that it has quite different properties from the matter composed of non-ionized atoms of the same type.
But the refractive properties of the plasma could vary widely depending on the type of gas(ses), temperature, ionization level and pressure, among other things.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #112 on: June 15, 2009, 08:13:39 PM »
Actually, we have moved on from where you are. According to S.B.R., we can have, at least in principle, an 'infinite' range of vision on the surface of the Earth, because it is flat and because air near the Earth's surface does not have an anomalous refraction index.

What I was referring to was, the upper regions of the atmolayer, somewhere between the Sun and the the surface of the Earth. The gas of the atmolayer is ionized over there and possibly participates in a swirling motion. This creates the strange refraction index that makes the light from celestial bodies to curve as going to a weird lens. This might leave the impression, for example, that the position of Polaris on the night sky is getting lower and lower as we approach the Equator, where, finally, it vanishes from view. In fact, one may define the Equator as the set of points on the surface of the Earth from which Polaris lies on the horizon. However, according to the above explanation this is purely an optical illusion effect, if you will.

Similar explanation holds for interchanging of day and night and Arctic periods of constant sunlight or darkness. Basically, you can think of it this way. If you look through a fish-eyed lens, you see the world distorted and curved. The ionosphere might cause a similar effect, causing us to see the 'heavens' as if we were on a RE.

?

dyno

  • 562
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #113 on: June 15, 2009, 11:25:17 PM »
Actually, we have moved on from where you are. According to S.B.R., we can have, at least in principle, an 'infinite' range of vision on the surface of the Earth, because it is flat and because air near the Earth's surface does not have an anomalous refraction index.

What I was referring to was, the upper regions of the atmolayer, somewhere between the Sun and the the surface of the Earth. The gas of the atmolayer is ionized over there and possibly participates in a swirling motion. This creates the strange refraction index that makes the light from celestial bodies to curve as going to a weird lens. This might leave the impression, for example, that the position of Polaris on the night sky is getting lower and lower as we approach the Equator, where, finally, it vanishes from view. In fact, one may define the Equator as the set of points on the surface of the Earth from which Polaris lies on the horizon. However, according to the above explanation this is purely an optical illusion effect, if you will.

Similar explanation holds for interchanging of day and night and Arctic periods of constant sunlight or darkness. Basically, you can think of it this way. If you look through a fish-eyed lens, you see the world distorted and curved. The ionosphere might cause a similar effect, causing us to see the 'heavens' as if we were on a RE.

Ok, now you have a proposed mechanism. The next step is to support that proposal. Calculations describing the effect is one way. Observations with quantitative data is another.
Otherwise what you have essentially said is "magic"

*

parsec

  • 6176
  • +0/-0
  • 206,265
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #114 on: June 15, 2009, 11:31:57 PM »
ok.

?

mazty88

  • 473
  • +0/-0
Re: what's wrong with bendy light?
« Reply #115 on: June 16, 2009, 05:23:31 AM »