'Bendy Light' Discussion

If you're referring to refraction in a medium, I wholehearted agree that the speed of light is different within the medium than without.  Bendy light doesn't seem to have anything to do with refraction, though.

Quote from: parsec on February 03, 2010, 09:30:00 AM

where did i say light's speed is not changing?

Quote from: parsec on January 28, 2010, 01:45:58 PM

light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.

It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement. Please refrain from using Fermat's Principle, as you clearly have no idea what it reflects and how it is derived.

Quote from: cwolfe on February 03, 2010, 09:35:57 AM

Quote from: parsec on February 03, 2010, 09:30:00 AM

where did i say light's speed is not changing?

Quote from: parsec on January 28, 2010, 01:45:58 PM

light does not accelerate! ray paths are not particle trajectories.

It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement. Please refrain from using Fermat's Principle, as you clearly have no idea what it reflects and how it is derived.

I admit I did misunderstand you, but rest assured that I understand what Fermat's principle is, as it is the principle which governs refraction, among other things.  If light is travelling a long distance through the same medium, Fermat's principle would suggest that the light should travel in a straight line until it enters a different medium.  This is how I came to the conclusion that bendy light is at odds with the principle.  Only at the interface between two media does the path of light change.

It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement.

Instead of stamping your feet and asking people to stop talking about things, maybe you should just help us understand your statement...

Parsec just seems to enjoy catching people in logical miss-steps instead of actually debating a topic.

I'm expecting him to throw equations at us any minute now.

Quote from: parsec on February 03, 2010, 09:46:43 AM

It's nice to see that you completely misunderstood my statement.

Instead of stamping your feet and asking people to stop talking about things, maybe you should just help us understand your statement...

Light rays, although they obey analogous mathematical principles as point particles, are just a convenient pictorial representation of propagation of light in a particular domain of applicability called Geometrical Optics. They are not trajectories of some real physical particles. The concept of acceleration is only valid for the mechanical motion of real physical objects. If a light ray is represented by a curved line, it does not mean that there are some particles moving along that line. Therefore, the concept of acceleration is meaningless in the context of optics, even in geometrical optics.

Photons are actual particles, and they are also waves.  Are you familiar with wave-particle duality?

In addition, if Fermat's principle suggests that light propagates in a straight line unless the medium it propagates through changes, how does bendy light agree with it?

Light rays, although they obey analogous mathematical principles as point particles, are just a convenient pictorial representation of propagation of light in a particular domain of applicability called Geometrical Optics. They are not trajectories of some real physical particles. The concept of acceleration is only valid for the mechanical motion of real physical objects. If a light ray is represented by a curved line, it does not mean that there are some particles moving along that line. Therefore, the concept of acceleration is meaningless in the context of optics, even in geometrical optics.

Your post caused Firefox to crash with "0x004332: Fail overflow". I had to reboot.

Photons are actual particles, and they are also waves.  Are you familiar with wave-particle duality?

In addition, if Fermat's principle suggests that light propagates in a straight line unless the medium it propagates through changes, how does bendy light agree with it?

Please stop posting. Reading some general informational articles from an Encyclopedia is one thing, actually knowing what you are talking about is another. Do you even know under what circumstances the corpuscular nature of light becomes observable and under what the wave nature is a more satisfactory model? Furthermore, do you know what Geometrical Optics actually is?

Why are you asking me to stop posting?  Last time I checked, this was a debate forum.  You're also being awfully rude.  If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.

Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects.  It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect.  It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation.  And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.

Why are you asking me to stop posting?  Last time I checked, this was a debate forum.  You're also being awfully rude.  If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.

Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects.  It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect.  It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation.  And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.

Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.

Quote from: parsec on February 03, 2010, 10:30:34 AM

You are not discussing anything. You just provide us with posts low on content, humor or originality.

No. Go back and reread my post.

You're just looking twitchy, accusatory and defensive now. That must be how people win debates on the internet?

What post would that be? Is it the one where you tried to use some immature computer slang in order to appear witty and smart? Well, it is not considered a discussion.

Quote from: cwolfe on February 03, 2010, 10:29:47 AM

Why are you asking me to stop posting?  Last time I checked, this was a debate forum.  You're also being awfully rude.  If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.

Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects.  It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect.  It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation.  And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.

Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.

Clearly the particle properties of light are more prominent in the quantum regime, i.e. at the atomic scale. 

At your request, I'm going to back away from this forum for a while so I can actually get work done.  Debating isn't fun when you're being insulted.

Quote from: parsec on February 03, 2010, 10:14:23 AM

Light rays, although they obey analogous mathematical principles as point particles, are just a convenient pictorial representation of propagation of light in a particular domain of applicability called Geometrical Optics. They are not trajectories of some real physical particles. The concept of acceleration is only valid for the mechanical motion of real physical objects. If a light ray is represented by a curved line, it does not mean that there are some particles moving along that line. Therefore, the concept of acceleration is meaningless in the context of optics, even in geometrical optics.

Your post caused Firefox to crash with "0x004332: Fail overflow". I had to reboot.

I'm tired of your low-content posting. Have a fortnight off.

Quote from: cwolfe on February 03, 2010, 10:29:47 AM

Why are you asking me to stop posting?  Last time I checked, this was a debate forum.  You're also being awfully rude.  If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.

Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects.  It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect.  It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation.  And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.

Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.

Read the Feynman lectures if you dont understand it.  The particle-wave duality is equally applicable at all scales. Choosing to look at light as either a particle or a wave is simply a matter of convenience depending on what specific properties you are experimenting with. However, the light will still be both particle and wave, at all times. The properties are not "more prominent" at any differing scale, or under different conditions. The only difference is how you are looking at it.  It is difficult to explain it any better than that to anyone who hasnt taken advanced math an physics courses. I encourage you to get the set of lectures (you can find a used set for about $100, if you look hard enough). He starts out relating the properties of light to physical objects, such as bullets accelerating out of a gun, and works towards the more esoteric properties of light. 

Quote from: parsec on February 03, 2010, 10:32:11 AM

Quote from: cwolfe on February 03, 2010, 10:29:47 AM

Why are you asking me to stop posting?  Last time I checked, this was a debate forum.  You're also being awfully rude.  If you're going to get huffy and offended constantly, maybe you should be the one to back away for a bit.

Light acts as a wave because we observe interference and diffraction, which are wave effects.  It also acts as a particle because we observe effects like the photoelectric effect.  It acts as either a wave or a particle depending on the nature of the observation.  And I know what geometrical optics is, I've done ray tracing, as anyone who's taken an introductory physics course has.

Nice textbook copypasta. But I did not ask you how we know light behaves as a wave or a particle, I asked you under what conditions is one more prominent than the other.

Read the Feynman lectures if you dont understand it.  The particle-wave duality is equally applicable at all scales. Choosing to look at light as either a particle or a wave is simply a matter of convenience depending on what specific properties you are experimenting with. However, the light will still be both particle and wave, at all times. The properties are not "more prominent" at any differing scale, or under different conditions. The only difference is how you are looking at it.  It is difficult to explain it any better than that to anyone who hasnt taken advanced math an physics courses. I encourage you to get the set of lectures (you can find a used set for about $100, if you look hard enough). He starts out relating the properties of light to physical objects, such as bullets accelerating out of a gun, and works towards the more esoteric properties of light. 

So .... about geometrical optics ... Are light rays trajectories of photons?

Your point being? I suppose it depends on your definition of "light rays".

Because from any good vantage point on the Earth, one can see half the celestial sphere, from the zenith (90 degrees altitude) to the horizon (0 degrees altitude) and all around (0-360 degrees azimuth, measured NESW from the meridian, which is an imaginary arc connecting the zenith to the north horizon).  Given the time of day and latitude, one can convert altitude and azimuth to right ascension and declination.  Because the celestial sphere rotates around the Earth, one can map out the same portion of the celestial sphere from anywhere at the same latitude.  This is how the VLA, in NM, was able to survey the entire sky north of -40 degrees declination.

Do you have any such justification that does not assume RET?

Bendy light doesn't contradict gravitation, but a flat Earth does.  Bendy light does, however, contradict electromagnetism, which has no provision for the kind of dramatic bending required for a flat Earth to appear round.  Only in GR do we observe bending of light, and even for things as massive as the Sun only a miniscule amount of bending is observed.  Astronomers, however, can use a process called gravitational lensing to observe objects extremely far away.  In this case the object bending the light has to be immensely massive, such as a galaxy cluster or a black hole.

I understand how gravitational lensing works, at least in principle, but I don't see that bendy light contradicts electromagnetism at all. Rather, I feel that if bendy light occurs, then electromagnetism as we understand it is incomplete, but not incorrect.

There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.

I tried to come up with a response to this, and failed pathetically because I simply cannot understand what you're trying to say. When you feel like being a bit less vague, I'll be glad to debate with you.

Quote from: Skeleton on February 02, 2010, 11:56:07 AM

There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.

I tried to come up with a response to this, and failed pathetically.

Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.

Quote from: Parsifal on February 08, 2010, 12:39:51 AM

Quote from: Skeleton on February 02, 2010, 11:56:07 AM

There is more evidence for a singular one than a multiple pole system, as when people look at the sky they only see one, and you can follow the stars back to other parts of the sky consistently. If there was more than one, you could not follow a trail of stars up to other areas consistently.

I tried to come up with a response to this, and failed pathetically.

Its not vague at all. If you look at the stars around the south pole, then look at another star 10 degrees towards the equator, then another star 10 degrees further towards the equator, observing a line of stars, you will eventually get to a star there is only one of, not multiples, because you do not claim that every star in the sky is duplicated, only those around the south pole.
Now reverse this procedure, in steps towards the south pole. Understand now? I bet everyone else does.

I've got $100 on that bet!

Epiphany:  these debates are pointless because nothing has been proven concretely.

And since both sides are insisting that their theories will be proven one day soon, or perhaps have some form of circumstantial evidence from some incidence another, both sides refuse to accept any other explanations than the one they believe.

There's no concrete evidence for bendy light, and there is no concrete evidence against it.

In my mind, that's all there is to it.

There's no concrete evidence for bendy light, and there is no concrete evidence against it.

In my mind, that's all there is to it.

By the same token you're saying there is no concrete evidence for light travelling straight. Given that it's generally accepted by the world at large that light does travel straight, what would you accept as concrete proof of that?

Quote from: jtelroy on February 11, 2010, 11:57:18 AM

There's no concrete evidence for bendy light, and there is no concrete evidence against it.

In my mind, that's all there is to it.

By the same token you're saying there is no concrete evidence for light travelling straight. Given that it's generally accepted by the world at large that light does travel straight, what would you accept as concrete proof of that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a RE'er and I think light travels straight.

But!

All experiments which we have done which appear to show conclusively straight travelling light can have just enough doubt cast on them by FET to make FET a possibility, however slight.

And all the RE'er debate in the world will not make FET completely impossible, and if its not completely possible the FE'ers will stand by it.

Quote from: jtelroy on February 11, 2010, 12:46:02 PM

All experiments which we have done which appear to show conclusively straight travelling light can have just enough doubt cast on them by FET to make FET a possibility, however slight.

No. All "experiments" for bendy light rely on the disputed shape of the earth.

Even then they fail catastrophically. Eg, stars and large objects over the horizon etc.

FET is a theory based more on discounting RET rather than proving itself.  I agree that there really is no concrete proof for any of FET's tenets.

However, since the theory is "possible" no matter how logical us RE'ers will argue, a FE'er will always be able to say "Well it COULD be this way!"

Possibility is not always reality.

I could flip a coin one hundred times and and get tails every time.

The earth could be flat if the laws of physics were rewritten.

I totally agree with you.  Like I said I'm a RE'er.

But no matter how you argue it, FET will only point out that you could possibly be wrong, meaning they could possibly be right.

That's all any FET/RET boils down to: RE'ers have an abundance of experiments showing that the Earth is round, FET says there is a possibility that those results show the Earth is round if certain conditions exist (and those conditions have never ben conclusively show not exist)


Don't get me wrong man, I totally agree with every single thing you've said.

But the slightest possibility that we are wrong is all a group of tenacious FE'ers need to say that they MIGHT be right.

Quote from: jtelroy on February 11, 2010, 02:25:29 PM

But no matter how you argue it, FET will only point out that you could possibly be wrong, meaning they could possibly be right.

No. Possibility lies in the future.

The earth lies in the present.

We don't need to refer to possibility when we can look and see for ourselves.

FEers have two strategies:

- Torture every law of science to try and make it "fit" their flat earth model. Popular amongst physics trolls who think they can prove a boson is a clockwise spinning hadron.

- Supress and fantisise. Ie claim all experiments are incorrectly performed and build a shadowy conspiracy to fill in the remaining gaps. Popular amongst genuine nutters and those who feel they are important enough to be persecuted.

I think we're saying the same thing, you're just being more specific than I was.  At least I feel like what you said was what I was trying to say only more detailed.


What I was trying to imply was that these debates are pointless is because the argument strategies you outlined are filled with enough loopholes (not to mention the ever-useful Burden of Proof dodge) that they can use them to defend against the most logical of arguments.

You can keep trying to back them into a corner, or point out flaws in their theory (which I agree are abundant)  but I guarantee you that the FE'ers will always be able to weasel out of every argument you throw at them.

Quote from: jtelroy on February 11, 2010, 02:41:50 PM

FE'ers will always be able to weasel out of every argument you throw at them.

Just like the man who offered to pay out to anyone who could "convince him that the earth was round".

All he had to do was constantly insist he's not convinced.

Money safe. Flat earth theory upheld?

Exactly.  That's why their "Burden of Proof" defense is so effective, because they don't have any real experiments providing proof, but they can insist that our evidence isn't concrete until the galaxy implodes.

Any in fact, because I already spent a lot of time Debunking EnaG, at least as much as needed.

You can keep trying to back them into a corner, or point out flaws in their theory (which I agree are abundant)  but I guarantee you that the FE'ers will always be able to weasel out of every argument you throw at them.

So far none of them have weaselled out of the inability of FET to explain two celestial poles and the path of the sun around the sky in summer as seen from Antarctica.

So far none of them have weaselled out of the inability of FET to explain two celestial poles and the path of the sun around the sky in summer as seen from Antarctica.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

In the Antarctica-as-a-continent model the sun moves around Antarctica during the Antarctic Summer.