Why does light bend and what are its exact properties

I've been looking around, but nowhere do I see an explanation for why light bends, or exactly how it actually works.

It's hard to find out what the consensus on the FET is when everybody has their own personal version of it.

What's the official version of the bendy light theory, why it works as it does (what makes it bend so exactly the way you need it to to make your theory work?) and exactly how it works.

After this much time to study the subject, I am sure you must have a valid theory with equations and functions that show which variables affect the bending of light.

It's hard to find out what the consensus on the FET is when everybody has their own personal version of it.

There is no consensus. That's why they have a believers forum where they have daily bimonthly discussions levee posting some crap.

There is no consensus. That's why they have a believers forum where they have daily bimonthly discussions levee posting some crap.

Clearly you have never mustered the strength to actually read his posts.

Quote from: Beorn on January 27, 2011, 01:42:54 PM

There is no consensus. That's why they have a believers forum where they have daily bimonthly discussions levee posting some crap.

Clearly you have never mustered the strength to actually read his posts.

I'm not sure if Heracles can muster the strength to actually read Levee's posts.

I've been looking around, but nowhere do I see an explanation for why light bends, or exactly how it actually works.

It's hard to find out what the consensus on the FET is when everybody has their own personal version of it.

What's the official version of the bendy light theory, why it works as it does (what makes it bend so exactly the way you need it to to make your theory work?) and exactly how it works.

After this much time to study the subject, I am sure you must have a valid theory with equations and functions that show which variables affect the bending of light.

There is no real official version.
The main idea is that some mysterious force that interacts only with photons, repels light upwards with respect of the earth. The  particle that carries this force and the mass on the other end of the interaction are both undiscovered, and are only assumed to be in existence based on the assumption that light bends.


The light bends upwards in some secant path (which is impossible as I have shown in another thread, as this requires the force to depend on velocity of the light):

y=r(secant(r/x)-1)

Imagine a laser parallel to the ground pointing a beam of light.
y is the altitude of the light, x is the distance from the laser, and r is the radius of the earth.

The FE'ers thought a secant was to unnatural so someone, probably parsifal, decided to apply some half harted quadratic fit to the curve for low values of x. And so now we have a quardatic equation with 2 mathematical constants that got pulled from thin air, which can be touted as inspiration for the original equation.

But thats only half of the story. there's also some other form of bendly light that causes light that shines radially from the sun to fall on a semicircle on the flat earth (sun rise and sun set). there is no equation for this one.

But thats only half of the story. there's also some other form of bendly light that causes light that shines radially from the sun to fall on a semicircle on the flat earth (sun rise and sun set). there is no equation for this one.

The sun's rays would have to be tangent to the earth's surface at the night-day terminator.

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on January 27, 2011, 04:28:20 PM

But thats only half of the story. there's also some other form of bendly light that causes light that shines radially from the sun to fall on a semicircle on the flat earth (sun rise and sun set). there is no equation for this one.

The sun's rays would have to be tangent to the earth's surface at the night-day terminator.

yes. yes they would. here's my diagram, based on the fact that people at the equator see the sun either due east or due west, that people in the north see the sun a little south, and that people in the south see the sun a little north. AND that the terminator is a full 180 degrees. the arrows are the rough direction of the light, and they get longer the more horizontal the light is. the three semi circle curves represent the equator and +- 45 degrees. note that in reality, the amount of light per given area is the same for + and - 45 degrees. but as you can see in the image, this is not true for the flat earth. this is because the latitude line on +- 45 degrees has the same length in reality, but on the flat earth, -45 degrees is 3 times as long as +45 degrees


And don't get me started on what happens when it NOT the equinox. you have to shift all the arrows up or down, and the one that go over, you place on the other semi circle. it gets really weird

And we really don't have a proper explanation as to how this inconsistent phenomenon works exactly, or why? I find this to be quite a glaring hole in their theory. Really, they'll have to do better than that. And I thought I could have answers to my question

And we really don't have a proper explanation as to how this inconsistent phenomenon works exactly, or why? I find this to be quite a glaring hole in their theory. Really, they'll have to do better than that. And I thought I could have answers to my question

How is it any different from RE theory?  They state quite frequently that light bends.  It's just accepted without question because RE'ers will believe literally anything told to them about RE theory from an RE'er.

Light has mass and is therefore affected by gravity. What we have observed corresponds with this. You need light to bend in a very, very special and non-logical fashion to make your theory work, and you have absolutely no reason as to why it should work like this, except it must because of course you are right.

Quote from: silver on January 27, 2011, 11:07:17 PM

And we really don't have a proper explanation as to how this inconsistent phenomenon works exactly, or why? I find this to be quite a glaring hole in their theory. Really, they'll have to do better than that. And I thought I could have answers to my question

How is it any different from RE theory?  They state quite frequently that light bends.  It's just accepted without question because RE'ers will believe literally anything told to them about RE theory from an RE'er.

Light traveling straight because there is no force to make it go another way is logically consistant. psuedo forces that cause my diagram to happen are not.

I really am quite curious about this. Does FE actually have no explanation for this?

Not at all. In fact, since Universal Acceleration should supposedly affect light as well, causing it to bend downwards, and actually fit Round Earth theory.

Exactly why would light have to bend to fit the RET?

Because light bends in RET?

Please ignore Thevoiceofreason, he likes to think he understands more than he does.

EA theory is still under active development, but if you must have some quantitative analysis, please refer to this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30679.0

Once again, as many people seem to have difficulty in grasping this concept, that thread presents an approximation only. The complete theory is yet to be published.

Thevoiceofreason's post made perfect sense, since light -would- have to bend like that to make FE work. That was my planned "angle of attack" if you explained that light bends in a cone.

I would ask one question though, in your final equation, does light bend in a 'concave' cone, IE essentially outwards in a circle?

EA theory is still under active development...

Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?

How is it any different from RE theory?  They state quite frequently that light bends.  It's just accepted without question because RE'ers will believe literally anything told to them about RE theory from an RE'er.

Refraction can be observed by anyone wearing glasses.  We don't believe it because we're told it exists, we can actually see the difference it makes.  8th graders get to shine light through lenses to see for themselves how it bends.  In high school they're even given a formula that can predict how the light will bend.  Bendy light, however exists only because FET says it does because FE'ers think it'll fix their inconsistently moving sun. It doesn't, which is why RE'ers don't buy it.

Light has mass

Do you have any proof of your claims?  Light may have momentum, but it most certainly does not have mass.

Light may have momentum, but it most certainly does not have mass.

I think you missed a few days of highschool: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/momentum.html

momentum = mass x velocity

Quote from: EnigmaZV on February 02, 2011, 11:10:26 AM

Light may have momentum, but it most certainly does not have mass.

I think you missed a few days of highschool: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/momentum.html

Quote from: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/momentum.html

momentum = mass x velocity

lrn2special relativity
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html#c2

This thread is not about RE theory, but rather about how FE light works.

I'll repeat my question, is the end/desired result of the "finished equation" that light bends in an essentially symmetric circular fashion?

This thread is not about RE theory, but rather about how FE light works.

I'll repeat my question, is the end/desired result of the "finished equation" that light bends in an essentially symmetric circular fashion?

No, that is not how light is proposed to bend.  Parsifal has provided you with a link describing how light is proposed to bend.

As far as I can make out from Parsifals comments in said thread, his version of bendy light would be circular

It is widely believed that light is a particle and a wave. If you observe a diagram of a wave, you will see that it is in fact fairly bendy, bending this way and that as it wobbles across the page.

It is widely believed that light is a particle and a wave. If you observe a diagram of a wave, you will see that it is in fact fairly bendy, bending this way and that as it wobbles across the page.

We're mainly concerned with the direction in which the wave propagates.  If you were to place a ball bearing or similar round object, how would it react to the waves?  will it be pushed in a straight line? or follow a curved path?

I'd like to see a diagram of what directions sunlight is going during a sunset in FE.  Make it a coastal sunset too complete with a ship disappearing over the horizon, and mountains and clouds being lit up orange and red(pink, whatever).  2D would be fine.

As far as I can make out from Parsifals comments in said thread, his version of bendy light would be circular

I posted an equation. Are you familiar with elementary mathematics?

Bendy light was disproven a long time ago. That's why it's not in the FAQ.

Parsibinrobo admitted on many occasions that it doesn't work, even as a theory.

However there's several ways to test a broken theory, just don't expect meaningful results.