EAT violates the Laws of Optics

Contrary to the claims of some FEers, EAT (affectionately known by all except EG as "Bendy Light") violates the basic Laws of Optics, specifically the Law of Rectilinear Propagation of Light. Please reference: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waves/node55.html to find this quote:

The first of these relations states that the angle of incidence, , is equal to the angle of reflection, . Of course, this is the familiar law of reflection. Moreover, the second relation corresponds to the equally familiar law of refraction, otherwise known as Snell's law.
Incidentally, the fact that a plane wave propagates through a uniform medium with a constant wavevector, and, therefore, a constant direction of propagation, is equivalent to the well known law of rectilinear propagation, which states that light propagates through a uniform medium in a straight-line.

It is clear, from the above discussion, that the laws of geometric optics (i.e., the law of rectilinear propagation, the law of reflection, and the law of refraction) are fully consistent with the wave properties of light, despite the fact that they do not appear to explicitly depend on these properties.

So please if you believe in EAT, be prepared to reject your eye doctor's advise.

Sorry, why do we have to throw out all of optics just because one law disagrees with EAT?

Sorry, why do we have to throw out all of optics just because one law disagrees with EAT?

Pretty much all of Optics, Maxwell's Equations, SR, and GR go. The three basic laws of Optics are inherent underpinnings of all of those Sciences and more.

If you want, you can start from Snell's time and come forward to see what you can get to still work with EAT. I'm perfectly happy to say that if you're right then 100 years for physics is wrong.

Let us know when you finish that review. Watch out for the Lorentz Transforms and GR's prediction of doppler effects in gravity fields. I suspect they will both need serious work.

Pretty much all of Optics, Maxwell's Equations, SR, and GR go. The three basic laws of Optics are inherent underpinnings of all of those Sciences and more.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide justification for such outlandish claims.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 02, 2010, 05:11:47 AM

Pretty much all of Optics, Maxwell's Equations, SR, and GR go. The three basic laws of Optics are inherent underpinnings of all of those Sciences and more.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide justification for such outlandish claims.

Try this. Pull out your high school physics book. Turn to the optic chapter's beginning find the basic laws. Then mark everytime the basic law is used for another conclusion. Then mark everything that uses a marked conclusion. Repeat this until you aren't making any changes. Then pull out your intro book from college. Repeat with that book. Then do so for each book in the standard university education through at least the master's level.

I assure you that optics would suffer horrible.
I'm also rather sure that Maxell relies on Rectilinear Propagation of Light.
I'm sure that Lorenz's definitely dealt with straight lines in his proofs about light.
Einstein definitely relied on light traveling in straight lines in both SR and GR.

If you're serious, I could help you find these 'major' points that EAT modifies standard GR physics. If you're just trolling, please be nice and let me be.

Sorry, why do we have to throw out all of optics just because one law disagrees with EAT?

Because all optics either implicitly or explicitly rely on rectilinear propagation.

As a physics student at university level you should know this. Imma gonna go ahead and give you the credit of pretending to be dumb.

Try this. Pull out your high school physics book. Turn to the optic chapter's beginning find the basic laws. Then mark everytime the basic law is used for another conclusion. Then mark everything that uses a marked conclusion. Repeat this until you aren't making any changes. Then pull out your intro book from college. Repeat with that book. Then do so for each book in the standard university education through at least the master's level.

How many of those authors studied the straightness of light over very long distances and did not merely assume that light traveled in straight lines?

Some of them? None of them?

If so, where is their work? If not, then their assumptions are meaningless and not to be taken on authority.

EAT violates the Laws of Optics

violate - rape: force (someone) to have sex against their will; "The woman was raped on her way home at night"

Quote from: Parsifal on September 02, 2010, 04:59:15 AM

Sorry, why do we have to throw out all of optics just because one law disagrees with EAT?

Because all optics either implicitly or explicitly rely on rectilinear propagation.

As a physics student at university level you should know this. Imma gonna go ahead and give you the credit of pretending to be dumb.

Did these scientists do their experiments with the assumption that light travels in straight lines? If so, they would have had to skew their equations in order for them to work.

Quote

EAT violates the Laws of Optics

violate - rape: force (someone) to have sex against their will; "The woman was raped on her way home at night"

*sigh*

Definition of VIOLATE
1: break, disregard <violate the law>
2: to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : rape 2
3: to fail to show proper respect for : profane <violate a shrine>
4: interrupt, disturb <violate the peace of a spring evening — Nancy Larter>

How many of those authors studied the straightness of light over very long distances and did not merely assume that light traveled in straight lines?

Some of them? None of them?

If so, where is their work? If not, then their assumptions are meaningless and not to be taken on authority.

Their work is in the libraries. Go and study.
EDIT: They didn't assume that light travels in straight lines. They didn't know how light travels and and exactly because of this they did experiments and determined that light travels in straight lines.

violate - rape: force (someone) to have sex against their will; "The woman was raped on her way home at night"

Now we know in what directions your interests lean.

Did these scientists do their experiments with the assumption that light travels in straight lines? If so, they would have had to skew their equations in order for them to work.

No, they tested the assumption. Odd that you would make such a claim about "skewing their equations" and not cite a single case where your experiments invalidated their equations as "skewed". We await the preponderance of scientific evidence that hundreds of years of experiments were skewed. Can you have some real evidence by the turn of the millenium?

Quote

Try this. Pull out your high school physics book. Turn to the optic chapter's beginning find the basic laws. Then mark everytime the basic law is used for another conclusion. Then mark everything that uses a marked conclusion. Repeat this until you aren't making any changes. Then pull out your intro book from college. Repeat with that book. Then do so for each book in the standard university education through at least the master's level.

How many of those authors studied the straightness of light over very long distances and did not merely assume that light traveled in straight lines?

Some of them? None of them?

If so, where is their work? If not, then their assumptions are meaningless and not to be taken on authority.

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

EAT is false by careful experimentation.

How many of those authors studied the straightness of light over very long distances and did not merely assume that light traveled in straight lines?

Some of them? None of them?

Some of them proved that light travelled in straight lines. The rest didn't need to assume any longer.

Did these scientists do their experiments with the assumption that light travels in straight lines?

No.

Some of them proved that light travelled in straight lines.

Who proved that light travels in straight lines? 

Quote

Some of them proved that light travelled in straight lines.

Who proved that light travels in straight lines? 

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Once you read the article and its data, please post again. If you can't be bothered to read the article, please don't bother us.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Tom, I suggest you google Refraction, Snell's Law, and Optical Phenomenon to better understand why EA is a total failure. EAT would be suggesting a whole list of optical phenomenon don't exist to which verifies the RET model.

And to be off topic for a second here, you can use a non-planer triangle to verify the shape of the Earth.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

It's not our problem to fill gaps in your education. Go to some library which has science section and start with optics. There are hundreds of books in the subject and you can find your data and all other things from there. Of course it works if you really go and read books instead of being specially obtuse and sitting in the preschool or other unrelated section and complain afterward that you didn't find anything.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2010, 06:09:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Once you read the article and its data, please post again. If you can't be bothered to read the article, please don't bother us.

So no data then?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:17:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2010, 06:09:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Once you read the article and its data, please post again. If you can't be bothered to read the article, please don't bother us.

So no data then?

There’s lots of data, Tom. I direct you again to the article. Are you too lazy to go to a source? By the way, where’s your data on EAT? Shouldn’t you be able to point us to that?

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:17:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2010, 06:09:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Once you read the article and its data, please post again. If you can't be bothered to read the article, please don't bother us.

So no data then?

Intentional playing the part of MORON!? There is more data on this subject that you apparently can handle. For the sake of intelligence, please learn how to read a book, go to the library, use the internet search tools, or go to MIT or any other college that teaches physics and ask some questions. Playing the town idiot for sake of intentional ignorance clearly shows that you have lost this debate Tom. This is like the magnet argument all over again, and I never seen someone be so intentionally stupid in order to cling to their ideological fallacy.

For the Last time Tom, educate yourself on the physics behind optics, and optical phenomenon. EAT is a complete utter joke.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:17:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2010, 06:09:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Once you read the article and its data, please post again. If you can't be bothered to read the article, please don't bother us.

So no data then?

So you still haven't read the article then?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2010, 02:40:22 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:17:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2010, 06:09:29 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 06:02:45 PM

Again: Ragulsky, “Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation”, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125.

The title of the article neither implies or suggests anything abut the straightness of light over long distances.

Did the author create an experiment to demonstrate that light is perfectly straight over the course of, say, one mile?

Where is the data?

Once you read the article and its data, please post again. If you can't be bothered to read the article, please don't bother us.

So no data then?

So you still haven't read the article then?

From:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM-3SPV3CF-17&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F27%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1450793025&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e01c1fb6865b347ab506d63051f98ad8&searchtype=a

The abstract states:

"A high precision experiment is reported showing that the phase velocity of light does not depend on direction."

What does an experiment regarding the velocity of light have to do with its straightness?

From:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVM-3SPV3CF-17&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F27%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1450793025&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e01c1fb6865b347ab506d63051f98ad8&searchtype=a

The abstract states:

"A high precision experiment is reported showing that the phase velocity of light does not depend on direction."

What does an experiment regarding the velocity of light have to do with its straightness?

You do understand that velocity is both speed (magnitude) and direction, right? Velocity has everything to do with straightness.

You've rather embarrassed yourself with that post, Tom. Try reading the article before posting again.

You do understand that velocity is both speed (magnitude) and direction, right? Velocity has everything to do with straightness.

The speed of light has nothing to do with straightness.

It's your responsibility to acquire the article if you wish to use it as evidence.

Quote

You do understand that velocity is both speed (magnitude) and direction, right? Velocity has everything to do with straightness.

The speed of light has nothing to do with straightness.

It's your responsibility to acquire the article if you wish to use it as evidence.

Good thing that the article works with the velocity of light.

I have acquired the article. Can you come up with another excuse now please? Maybe your bicycle chain is off so you can't get to the library?

Wait...
Why is Tom arguing against the straightness of light?  He believes that it doesn't bend just like Rowbotham.

The abstract states:

Reading the abstract is not the same as reading the article.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 04, 2010, 02:09:33 PM

The abstract states:

Reading the abstract is not the same as reading the article.

The abstract is a summary of the article.

Neither the title or abstract mention anything about the straightness of light over long distances.