A Discussion of Bendy Light

Quote from: Edtharan on December 27, 2008, 02:57:55 PM

You are quite right. Newtonian Gravity does not predict the orbit of Mercury precisely (and you need quite accurate measurements to show that it doesn't), however, Newton was wrong. For the nearly 100 years we have known this (way to be up to date Tom). Einstein's gravity does accurately predict the motions of Mercury (and a lot more besides).

Where are the equations using GR which will tell me the position of mercury at 12pm midnight tonight?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 29, 2008, 04:41:54 PM

Quote from: Edtharan on December 27, 2008, 02:57:55 PM

You are quite right. Newtonian Gravity does not predict the orbit of Mercury precisely (and you need quite accurate measurements to show that it doesn't), however, Newton was wrong. For the nearly 100 years we have known this (way to be up to date Tom). Einstein's gravity does accurately predict the motions of Mercury (and a lot more besides).

Where are the equations using GR which will tell me the position of mercury at 12pm midnight tonight?

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

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.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 18, 2008, 06:14:30 AM

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.

It's not possible. Light would have to bend up and then keep bending up, but this doesn't happen. FET assumes the laws of physics are significantly different for us than the heavens, somehow. The uniformity of nature is one of the most powerful tools a scientist can be blessed with, and theories that assume different laws for us down here on earth tend to be wrong.

Quote from: Pseudointellect on August 18, 2009, 08:23:05 PM

It's not possible. Light would have to bend up and then keep bending up, but this doesn't happen. FET assumes the laws of physics are significantly different for us than the heavens, somehow. The uniformity of nature is one of the most powerful tools a scientist can be blessed with, and theories that assume different laws for us down here on earth tend to be wrong.

Why can't light keep bending up?

Quote from: trig on December 15, 2008, 06:54:10 PM

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.

Why has no one responded to this? It's well written, has good arguments. Maybe too good?

Roundy the Truthinessist
"My gut response is that it's electromagnetic acceleration."

Your gut response is really useful to us...

Why can't light keep bending up?

Quote from: Euclid on August 18, 2009, 08:23:59 PM

Why can't light keep bending up?

Will the shadows keep bending down?

I like shadows and I'm kind of intrigued as to how bendy light will account for straight shadows from straight objects.

Light doesn't bend appreciably over common everyday distances.

Quote from: Euclid on August 19, 2009, 03:41:00 PM

Light doesn't bend appreciably over common everyday distances.

Can you give me an estimate of how far this is before it becomes noticeable?

Quote from: Anduie on August 19, 2009, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: Euclid on August 19, 2009, 03:41:00 PM

Light doesn't bend appreciably over common everyday distances.

Can you give me an estimate of how far this is before it becomes noticeable?

Something on order 10 km before bendy light becomes measurable.

Quote from: Anduie on August 19, 2009, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: Euclid on August 19, 2009, 03:41:00 PM

Light doesn't bend appreciably over common everyday distances.

Can you give me an estimate of how far this is before it becomes noticeable?

Something on order 10 km before bendy light becomes measurable.

According to Rowbotham, it would be much less than that.  He calculates it to be 8 inches for the one mile, 32 inches for two miles, 6 feet for 3 miles and so on.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

Quote from: markjo on August 19, 2009, 07:26:51 PM

According to Rowbotham, it would be much less than that.  He calculates it to be 8 inches for the one mile, 32 inches for two miles, 6 feet for 3 miles and so on.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm

That link has nothing to do with bendy light of any sort.

Quote from: Anduie on August 19, 2009, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: Euclid on August 19, 2009, 03:41:00 PM

Light doesn't bend appreciably over common everyday distances.

Can you give me an estimate of how far this is before it becomes noticeable?

Something on order 10 km before bendy light becomes measurable.

Bendy light is responsible for the "sinking ship effect" (apparent curvature of the earth), isn't it?

Let's make it simple for you, the sun, at a particular angle from the ground will cast a shadow of a particular object (say a pole stuck in the ground) of a particular length. This is predictable and measurable. How does bendy light make this shadow length predictable and measurable?

The way I see it is simple. The shadow is of a predictable length because light travels in straight lines - observable so. Now if light bends upwards towards the observer the shadow should be shorter, yes?

Why should it be shorter? If anything, it should be longer.

I don't know, it's not my hypothesis that I'm trying to understand. However, the shadow will be what length it is; what is observed is observed so the bendy light idea must fit all observed phenomena not just account for sinking ships.

Welcome back by the way.

Obviously. I intend to address this matter formally in due time; however, I spent the first week of my ban helping to set up the .me site and I am now back to full-time study, leaving me little time to work on EA theory for the time being. I'll see what I can do on the weekend, but I can't make any promises.

Quote from: markjo on August 19, 2009, 07:35:49 PM

Bendy light is responsible for the "sinking ship effect" (apparent curvature of the earth), isn't it?

Yes.

Obviously. I intend to address this matter formally in due time; however, I spent the first week of my ban helping to set up the .me site and I am now back to full-time study, leaving me little time to work on EA theory for the time being. I'll see what I can do on the weekend, but I can't make any promises.

If bendy light is responsible for the apparent curvature of the earth, then the table that Rowbotham provides clearly shows how much the light must bend in order to cause such apparent curvature.

Why were you banned?

Light doesn't just bend randomly all over the place; it bends in a very ordered fashion.

If one person is at point A and points laser to point B then how light can simultaneously bend up and down near the point B? That means the light from person seems to be bending up when it reaches to the point B but light which comes from point B bends down. It must bend down because we see things because light reflects from them and for observer to see the same spot where the light reaches it must travel backward the same path to the observer.

Quote from: markjo on August 20, 2009, 11:48:47 AM

If bendy light is responsible for the apparent curvature of the earth, then the table that Rowbotham provides clearly shows how much the light must bend in order to cause such apparent curvature.

Rowbotham is basing his figures on the predictions of RET. I see no reason why EA theory would have to match that shape exactly; a secant curve is a very unnatural shape for such a bend.