"Bendy light" and "EAT" are the same thing anyway and neither have any justification other than slight atmospheric refraction causing slightly "bendy light".
Uh. No. No they do give more than just atmospheric refraction. Are you going to read what I wrote any time soon?
Read, learn and inwardly digest!
In real physics electromagnetic fields do not bend electromagnetic radiation!
So it's up to you FE supporters to explain what EAT does and to justify it. I know you posted:
You know the explanation. My understanding is that the accelerator (in UA models, easy to formulate some equivalent in non-UA) acts to bend light so that over long distances it doesn't travel in perfectly straight lines. Thus what you see is not the plane's true height.
But just saying that "the accelerator acts to bend light so that over long distances it doesn't travel in perfectly straight lines. Thus what you see is not the plane's true height" is meaningless words unless "the accelerator" is justified either experimentally or theoretically
.
And I'm under no obligation to dig up FE hypotheses or the justification of them and as yet I've seem no real explanation of:
- Exactly what EAT does, presented by you or in the"Wiki" or
- any justification or theoretical basis for EAT by you or anyone else.
I know that a lot has been written in various threads about EAT but why should I look for all the points against them?
So post something useful or bug out!