Theoretical Physicists

It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right.  I am just saying light can and does bend.

When?

Diffraction.  Are purposely acting like you can't read? 

Refraction on an average day, and gravitational lensing (if the earth were massive enough to cause a significant amount of it), cause light to bend back towards the surface of the earth. If the earth were truly flat, this would create the appearance of living in a bowl. Also, there would be no clearly defined horizon; things would simply fade as distance increased.

'Bendy light', as required by all FEH's, demands that light always bend away from the surface of the earth at a rate of ~1° per 111km. This would only account for the appearance of a horizon, and 'sinking' objects though. To account for the sun appearing where it does would require light to bend in a very convoluted manner, and not just away from the surface, but horizontally (left and right) as well.

Refraction on an average day, and gravitational lensing (if the earth were massive enough to cause a significant amount of it), cause light to bend back towards the surface of the earth. If the earth were truly flat, this would create the appearance of living in a bowl. Also, there would be no clearly defined horizon; things would simply fade as distance increased.

'Bendy light', as required by all FEH's, demands that light always bend away from the surface of the earth at a rate of ~1° per 111km. This would only account for the appearance of a horizon, and 'sinking' objects though. To account for the sun appearing where it does would require light to bend in a very convoluted manner, and not just away from the surface, but horizontally (left and right) as well.

This is exactly right. I've seen Tintagel's and Jroa's explanation of what bendy light is like.

We've never observed any phenomenon remotely like it

It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right.  I am just saying light can and does bend.

Are you saying that diffraction explains FE sunsets? 

It will bend over just a few feet if the conditions are right.  I am just saying light can and does bend.

You are making this up. A few feet from where to where?  Light will refract because there is a medium to do so. Just like reading glasses.

Lite can bend over just a few millimeters in a lens or a prism.  Yet, it can not bend over miles on the Earth? 

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Lite can bend over just a few millimeters in a lens or a prism.  Yet, it can not bend over miles on the Earth?

If you send light 90 degrees to a glass window it will not bend. Same applies to air. In certain conditions it will bend but by most part it will not.

Jroa, it is very easy to prove theoretical physicists wrong. Get some accepted theory and make an experiment that violates the theory and can not be explained. Where is your problem?

Lite can bend over just a few millimeters in a lens or a prism.  Yet, it can not bend over miles on the Earth?

The bending of light is generally measured in terms of angular measurement, not distance measurement.

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers? 

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 14, 2014, 06:00:35 AM

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?

Which proven scientific principle do you disagree with?

Refraction has been proven.

Refraction has been proven.

However, Electromagnetic Acceleration (A.K.A. Bendy Light) and Universal Acceleration not been proven, thereby showing that FE'ers are no better than RE theoretical physicists.

Gravitational lensing was proven a long time ago.  Perhaps the gravitational part can be replaced with UA, since the affect is the same.   

Gravitational lensing was proven a long time ago.  Perhaps the gravitational part can be replaced with UA, since the affect is the same.

Perhaps it could, if the math supported the observations.  Have you done the math, by any chance?

People make the math fit their model. 

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 14, 2014, 06:00:35 AM

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?

Are you saying that the density layers always line up so that the observations are predictable?

Quote from: jroa on April 14, 2014, 09:01:05 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 14, 2014, 06:00:35 AM

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?

Are you saying that the density layers always line up so that the observations are predictable?

Are you saying they don't? 

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 14, 2014, 06:00:35 AM

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?

Let's put it this way: You couldn't get your desired effect even if the air had the refraction index of ice...

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 14, 2014, 11:07:42 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 14, 2014, 09:01:05 AM

Quote from: BJ1234 on April 14, 2014, 06:00:35 AM

Are you saying the density of the air acts in a predictable manner in order to bend light so that the light of the sun follows a specific pattern day in and day out?

Are you saying that light does not bend through density layers?

Are you saying that the density layers always line up so that the observations are predictable?

Are you saying they don't?

Can you produce your evidence that they do?

Refraction has been proven.

Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.

Quote from: jroa on April 14, 2014, 09:15:32 AM

Refraction has been proven.

Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.

Actually air density, though not as much as pressure and temperature and humidity, actually do affect these phenomena. They are nowhere near the effects needed for the FE bullshit though. Here is some information about it:

http://www.atoptics.co.uk
http://www.gcrg.org/bqr/6-4/optics.htm

People make the math fit their model.

The math is the model.  The math has to fit the data.

Quote from: jroa on April 14, 2014, 09:15:32 AM

Refraction has been proven.

Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.

Are you saying that light does not refract when it goes from air to water? 

For Jroa


Optics Textbook

Because you have the most questions

Quote from: Starman on April 14, 2014, 12:23:33 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 14, 2014, 09:15:32 AM

Refraction has been proven.

Yes it is a fact of life but you mentioned density layers. The light will not refract through different layers no different than if you have different layers of glass and plastic. If you enter it at a angle then it will. We are talking to what extent. A lot or just a little amount. Light from the sun can refract to give the illusion the sun is closer than it really is. Isn't how they estimate how far the sun is in the FE model.

Are you saying that light does not refract when it goes from air to water?

Straight in and out it does not. It will bend if it goes in an angle. Put a small a object in water and look at it from the very top. It will not change shape. If you look at it from an angle it will look different.

For Jroa


Optics Textbook

Because you have the most questions

At least he started to use refraction instead of diffraction.

Quote from: FlatOrange on April 14, 2014, 03:01:35 PM

For Jroa


Optics Textbook

Because you have the most questions

At least he started to use refraction instead of diffraction.

I was referring to diffraction because it can happen over a small distance.  People were saying that light cannot bend, and I pointed out that it can bend over a few feet or inches with diffraction.  Why don't you actually read posts?