A Discussion of Bendy Light

Light does not bend, the path itself is bent.

Which means light is bent...

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 15, 2008, 03:10:51 PM

Light does not bend, the path itself is bent.

Which means light is bent...

No. If space is bent, and you walked through an area of bent space in a straight line, you'd come at a different destination/angle then if you walked through a non-bent area of space, even if you did not deviate your path at all. Light does not bend, because photons always follow straight paths along geodesics.

Great work, FE theorists! You have a sizeable group of your opposition running in circles.

But the simple fact is the bending of light in the "bendy light theory" does not solve the very problem it was designed to address, that is the apparent position of the celestial objects predicted in FE does not match the one seen by astronomers.

• There is no model of the path that light will take under bending
• There is no model of the way each point of the space above Earth bends light that comes from different directions. In fact, each point in space has to magically know where the observer is, where the celestial object is, and bend the light accordingly
• Even if the apparent position problem was solved, that would mean that the path taken by light from the Sun, for example, will be at least twice as long at 4 pm compared with 12 pm, so the Sun would seem twice as big at noon than at 4 pm. And the difference would be something like threefold if we compare noon with 6 pm.
• Also, the brightness of the Sun would be four times greater at noon compared with 4 pm, and some 9 times stronger at noon compared with 6 pm.
• There is no explanation of why, even after being bent almost 90 degrees at dawn and dusk, the image of the Sun is not distorted in any way. The same can be said of the Moon, that should be seen severely distorted when seen close to the horizon but it is not. And, since Tom Bishop will say that the Sun seems the right size because of glare, anyone can see that this is not the case. You just have to use a solar filter to see there is no glare, and you can see the Moon clearly without glare.
• Bendy light should bend light horizontally, not only vertically, to make the celestial objects appear to be where we see them. Any kind of acceleration on a vertical direction will not explain the horizontal shifts of the light.
• Bendy light should bend the light in increasingly convoluted paths to make the stars of the Southern constellations appear where they are seen. And this is not just a problem for people in the Southern hemisphere, because most of the southern constellations are seen from places like Florida, for example.

In short, bendy light solves nothing, is impossible to define mathematically so it predicts nothing, makes the problems with size and brightness of celestial objects worse than they already were, and requires the creation of a whole new set of physical phenomena that cannot be explained by any known physics.

No. If space is bent, and you walked through an area of bent space in a straight line, you'd come at a different destination/angle then if you walked through a non-bent area of space, even if you did not deviate your path at all.

Obviously, because the bent space is bending the object. An imaginary flexible worm moves along a curved path; the worm bends. The worm moves along a straight path; the worm is straight.

Light does not bend, because photons always follow straight paths along geodesics.

You don't seem to understand gravitational lensing. Gravitation, as the curvature of space-time, bends light, because the photons are merely traveling along the curved paths around a massive object or a black hole. Thus, light itself is directly affected by said space-time. Remember, a geodesic is a straightest possible line in curved space-time, meaning it is not perfectly straight due to space-time geometry.

Light bends due to aether.  That is why the further away from the surface of the plane the light source is, the more pronounced the effect.

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 15, 2008, 06:38:34 PM

No. If space is bent, and you walked through an area of bent space in a straight line, you'd come at a different destination/angle then if you walked through a non-bent area of space, even if you did not deviate your path at all.

Obviously, because the bent space is bending the object. An imaginary flexible worm moves along a curved path; the worm bends. The worm moves along a straight path; the worm is straight.

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 15, 2008, 06:38:34 PM

Light does not bend, because photons always follow straight paths along geodesics.

You don't seem to understand gravitational lensing. Gravitation, as the curvature of space-time, bends light, because the photons are merely traveling along the curved paths around a massive object or a black hole. Thus, light itself is directly affected by said space-time. Remember, a geodesic is a straightest possible line in curved space-time, meaning it is not perfectly straight due to space-time geometry.

Actually the definition of a Geodesic is mathematically equivalent to a Straight line. Thus only if 1 + 1 does not equal 2 is a geodesic not a straight line.

You are applying Euclidean geometry to a situation where it is distinctly non Euclidean. Euclidean Geometry is a special case of Non-Euclidean Geometry.

In Euclidean Geometry, if two lines start off as parallel, they can never converge or diverge. In Non-Euclidean Geometry, two lines that start off as parallel, and even though they can be shown to be straight, can in fact converge or diverge. The lines themselves are not bent, but the space that they are in is.

So it is perfectly true to states that Light travels in Straight lines (the mathematics that describes their prorogation requires them to be straight), because the "surface" (space-time) that they are travelling in is bent, the light appears to bend to an observer not following the same space-time curve that the light is.

You are applying Euclidean geometry to a situation where it is distinctly non Euclidean. Euclidean Geometry is a special case of Non-Euclidean Geometry.

Curved space-time isn't Euclidean geometry.

In Euclidean Geometry, if two lines start off as parallel, they can never converge or diverge. In Non-Euclidean Geometry, two lines that start off as parallel, and even though they can be shown to be straight, can in fact converge or diverge. The lines themselves are not bent, but the space that they are in is.

Therefore, since the space-time is bent (measurement of tidal effects), it causes the photon to deviate from the straight lines it would otherwise follow. That's geodesic deviation.

So it is perfectly true to states that Light travels in Straight lines (the mathematics that describes their prorogation requires them to be straight), because the "surface" (space-time) that they are travelling in is bent, the light appears to bend to an observer not following the same space-time curve that the light is.

Do you agree that gravitation deviates photons from the straight lines, causing the phenomenon known as gravitational lensing? Or, simply, do you agree that gravitation bends light? Also, when gravitation=acceleration, it is shown that a beam of light does bend relative to a non-inertial observer.

You don't seem to understand gravitational lensing. Gravitation, as the curvature of space-time, bends light, because the photons are merely traveling along the curved paths around a massive object or a black hole. Thus, light itself is directly affected by said space-time. Remember, a geodesic is a straightest possible line in curved space-time, meaning it is not perfectly straight due to space-time geometry.

And in a Flat Earth's universe there are black holes and massive objects... where?

If Earth is flat and the model of Rowbotham is correct, then gravitational lensing, along with pretty much all of relativity, is a theoretical mind game that explains one experiment (the one with a plane carrying an atomic clock) but every other experiment, observation or measurement made that uses relativity is a fake performed by the conspiracy.

Even the famous prediction made by Einstein about the orbit of Mercury can only be the musings of a deluded old man or the bold faced lie of the most famous conspirator.

So, if you want to believe in FE you cannot have Einstein in such a high esteem.

Quote from: Edtharan on December 15, 2008, 08:16:23 PM

You are applying Euclidean geometry to a situation where it is distinctly non Euclidean. Euclidean Geometry is a special case of Non-Euclidean Geometry.

Curved space-time isn't Euclidean geometry.

Which is exactly what I said.

Quote from: Edtharan on December 15, 2008, 08:16:23 PM

In Euclidean Geometry, if two lines start off as parallel, they can never converge or diverge. In Non-Euclidean Geometry, two lines that start off as parallel, and even though they can be shown to be straight, can in fact converge or diverge. The lines themselves are not bent, but the space that they are in is.

Therefore, since the space-time is bent (measurement of tidal effects), it causes the photon to deviate from the straight lines it would otherwise follow. That's geodesic deviation.

No. The photon does not deviate. If you travel through bent spacetime, you are not deviating, you simply continue to go straight ahead, but come out somewhere other than expected.

Quote from: Edtharan on December 15, 2008, 08:16:23 PM

So it is perfectly true to states that Light travels in Straight lines (the mathematics that describes their prorogation requires them to be straight), because the "surface" (space-time) that they are travelling in is bent, the light appears to bend to an observer not following the same space-time curve that the light is.

Do you agree that gravitation deviates photons from the straight lines, causing the phenomenon known as gravitational lensing? Or, simply, do you agree that gravitation bends light? Also, when gravitation=acceleration, it is shown that a beam of light does bend relative to a non-inertial observer.

Gravitational lensing, once again, does not bend light. It bends the space in which the beam of light is contained. The light does not curve to follow this geodesic, it simply travels in a straight line like it normally would, and it will be in a different position/angle at the end of the path.

Which is exactly what I said.

No, you said light does not bend. That is false.

No. The photon does not deviate. If you travel through bent spacetime, you are not deviating, you simply continue to go straight ahead, but come out somewhere other than expected.

Really...

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, particles of negligible mass travel along geodesics in the space-time. In uncurved space-time, far from a source of gravity, these geodesics correspond to straight lines; however, they may deviate from straight lines when the space-time is curved.

Curvature of spacetime can be measured when we observe the geodesics of two freefall test particles deviating relative to each other.

Do a search on the Geodesic Deviation equations.

Gravitational lensing, once again, does not bend light.

Gravitation, once again, does bend light.

It bends the space in which the beam of light is contained.

Wait, what bends what again?

The light does not curve to follow this geodesic, it simply travels in a straight line like it normally would, and it will be in a different position/angle at the end of the path.

A black hole bends space-time. Light bends in said space-time by deviating from the straight parallel paths. Geodesic deviation=particles no longer traveling parallel to each other, but converge or diverge. Why is this so hard to understand?

Also,

Also,

I still want an answer: Where is that galaxy?

He's right Jack.  Euclidean is a special case of non-euclidean and light does not bend, it goes in straight lines that are not straight to us.

Does everyone agree that as gravitation=acceleration, a beam of light bends relative to a non-inertial observer in an accelerating elevator?

Does everyone agree that as gravitation=acceleration, a beam of light bends relative to a non-inertial observer in an accelerating elevator?

In RE theory, and relativity light travels in straight lines.  In a non-inertial FoR it appears to "bend" or fall downward.  Or whichever way.  As a matter of fact, this is a good example of why light doesn't bend and why it travels straight.

It just depends on your frame of reference, which is the framework of Einstein relativity. Light does travel straight. Relative to an inertial observer, light remains constant. Relative to a non-inertial observer, however, light bends.

And in a Flat Earth's universe there are black holes and massive objects... where?

If Earth is flat and the model of Rowbotham is correct, then gravitational lensing, along with pretty much all of relativity, is a theoretical mind game that explains one experiment (the one with a plane carrying an atomic clock) but every other experiment, observation or measurement made that uses relativity is a fake performed by the conspiracy.

Even the famous prediction made by Einstein about the orbit of Mercury can only be the musings of a deluded old man or the bold faced lie of the most famous conspirator.

So, if you want to believe in FE you cannot have Einstein in such a high esteem.

The Sun is observed to bend the light from the stars behind it towards it during an eclipse.

And if you do consider the results of such experiments fake, then it simply means that the FE model has to get rid of GR and replace it with a whole host of unknown forces and mechanisms to explain what's going on.

It just depends on your frame of reference, which is the framework of Einstein relativity. Light does travel straight. Relative to an inertial observer, light remains constant. Relative to a non-inertial observer, however, light bends.

He is not incorrect in stating that light does not bend, even if you look at it from the non-inertial observer.  IT *appears* to bend.  There is a very gigantic mathematical difference that Einstein appreciated and you should too.

Yes, the word "appear" is important, just as a free-falling (inertial) observer appears to be accelerating relative to non-inertial observers.

On the other hand, the space isn't "Bent" either, but I guess thats close enough. ;-P

Quote from: Jack076 on December 15, 2008, 11:44:24 PM

Also,

I still want an answer: Where is that galaxy?

In the flat Earth model every galaxy is much less than, say, 100 meters wide and they are all side by side, making this diagram a figment in somebody's imagination. Is there at least one FE theorist that has a model in which two galaxies are one above the other, or is this just a philosophical debate about fictional objects in the sky, objects far too small to even have more mass than an asteroid?

Quote from: trig on December 16, 2008, 01:42:37 AM

Quote from: Jack076 on December 15, 2008, 11:44:24 PM

Also,

I still want an answer: Where is that galaxy?

In the flat Earth model every galaxy is much less than, say, 100 meters wide and they are all side by side, making this diagram a figment in somebody's imagination. Is there at least one FE theorist that has a model in which two galaxies are one above the other, or is this just a philosophical debate about fictional objects in the sky, objects far too small to even have more mass than an asteroid?

My aetheric model, when it is done, holds a large universe.

Here's what we'd have to see from Bendy light:


Which doesn't make a bit of sense since each person would have to have a special light curve.

Also, it wouldn't really make it appear as if the shit was sinking, more like it was resting on the water.

Here's what we'd have to see from Bendy light:

Which doesn't make a bit of sense since each person would have to have a special light curve.

Also, it wouldn't really make it appear as if the shit was sinking, more like it was resting on the water.

I love how (according to Tom Bishop) light from objects on the horizon bends downwards, light from the sun and stars bends upwards (light from the sun much more so than starlight), and all light bends in all directions at once.

Bendy light always bends up.

My aetheric model, when it is done, holds a large universe.

Now I understand why people believe Mr. Davis is Username. We are still waiting the theory of aether from Username, which was just around the corner about half a year ago, so I would be willing to bet Mr. Davis' theory of aether will be also half baked next May.

Quote from: Mr. Davis on December 18, 2008, 03:09:00 AM

My aetheric model, when it is done, holds a large universe.

Now I understand why people believe Mr. Davis is Username. We are still waiting the theory of aether from Username, which was just around the corner about half a year ago, so I would be willing to bet Mr. Davis' theory of aether will be also half baked next May.

Question; how long do you think it takes to write a scientific paper?


As an example, have a look at the length of time it took Einstein to publish his work on Special & General Relatvity.


People can be very foolish.

Quote from: Mr. Davis on December 18, 2008, 03:09:00 AM

My aetheric model, when it is done, holds a large universe.

Now I understand why people believe Mr. Davis is Username.

Um, people believe Mr Davis is Username because Mr Davis is Username.

Quote from: trig on December 18, 2008, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Mr. Davis on December 18, 2008, 03:09:00 AM

My aetheric model, when it is done, holds a large universe.

Now I understand why people believe Mr. Davis is Username.

Um, people believe Mr Davis is Username because Mr Davis is Username.

Come now Trig, please try to keep up.  Username's secret identity hasn't been a secret since the BBC article came out months ago.

Quote from: trig on December 18, 2008, 05:08:04 PM

Quote from: Mr. Davis on December 18, 2008, 03:09:00 AM

My aetheric model, when it is done, holds a large universe.

Now I understand why people believe Mr. Davis is Username. We are still waiting the theory of aether from Username, which was just around the corner about half a year ago, so I would be willing to bet Mr. Davis' theory of aether will be also half baked next May.

Question; how long do you think it takes to write a scientific paper?


As an example, have a look at the length of time it took Einstein to publish his work on Special & General Relatvity.


People can be very foolish.

There is a difference between someone that clearly shows an understanding of the subject and works for months or years to make his original contribution, and the person that is incapable of showing even a minuscule piece of the puzzle and promises to have a paper written "when I have some spare time".

Username is going to write a paper on something that Einstein could only speculate that must exist but could not even give an indication of where to start looking for it. After decades of progress beyond Einstein's work there is no solid progress into this aether idea, and Username is going to write a paper on it "when I have some spare time". Don't you think there is reason to believe Username is never going to show anything at all?