Real unbiased scientists should at least ponder upon the idea - what if light actualy bends.
"What is Gravitational Lensing, Alex ?"
Einstein theory was "invented" to hide light bending by aether. It was scientificly proven by the Lorentz . They needed to reinterpet the data.
Do you know thats its "confirming" the newtonian model by adding a very rare exception. Such a logical construct, but im not sure you can understand that. Prove me Im wrong and you are more inteligent than I think you are.
Here is a counter theory to official. And yes thats how science works by disproving one argument by proposing a counter argument. Contrary to some wanabe "scientists" try to claim here on this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwSXwV2jG4If you are so critical as you suppose you are. Why do you think they have picked the Einstein interpretation and dumped the rest? Theory of relativity is still mainly a hyphotesis. Some experiments are wrongly done. If you want I can wrote what experiments that "prove" theory of relativity need to be redone.
It was the Tesla himself that had said that without the aether the world around us is unexplainable. You can call everything about the Tesla but not being unscientific.
But if some guy propose a redone of experiments he is faced with a lack of funds and a wall of authorities. Its a very unscientific aspect of science we need to face to make world more innovative and in touch with the truth. If they wont do that there will be a turmoil of different more intouch thoeries on the internet about the universe because scientists sux at their job for making science more democratic.
By doing bad job at science, you create a frankensteins like flat earth. If there are some actual scientist. Do you your fucking job and experiments right so that people would not have any chance to call you losers.
you can absolutely bend light. (use therm bend loosely) light is matter. photons are matter, however light is also a wave. therefore it can bend around objects. (of extreme gravitational mass, or even through lenses.
light is really a wave and can only approximately be thought of as consisting of independently-propagating rays. This happens when the wavelength of the light is much smaller than the distances it is propagating over, which is usually the case for light (whose wavelength in the visible range is 0.4 to 0.7μm) but is not necessarily the case e.g. for radio waves and when nanoparticles are involved.
In this short-wavelength limit, wave propagation gives way to ray propagation (which is a special, approximate case of the former), and specifically to Fermat's principle for the mathematical description of light. This principle states that light rays starting at A and ending up at B will follow the path that minimizes the travel time
S=∫BAn(s)ds,where n(s)n(s) is the (possibly spatially dependant) refraction index along the path.
For a homogeneous medium, this does indeed give straight lines for propagation. For a planar interface between two different media it gives Snell's law for refraction and it also describes reflection. (However, because it does not account for the actual nature of light as an oscillating electric field, this description cannot predict transmission or reflection coefficients.
However, if the medium is not homogeneous, then light will not travel on a straight line, and for complicated inhomogeneities the path can be correspondingly difficult to calculate. For an example, see the formation of mirages or more generally atmospheric refraction. Conversely, if one has a path one wishes a given light ray to take, then it is possible to engineer a refractive index spatial dependence that will make light bend that way. (Of course, whether such a dependence is physically reasonable is another matter; if the path bends too sharply then it may not be possible to find materials with the correspondingly large index and index gradients necessary.)
Yes. I understood your model. But for example an experiment that proves the theory of relativity might as well prove that light bends in our atmosphere in the direction oposing to the official light refraction.
Scientists have made a "succesful" experiment with time change according to the atomic clock with the higher altitude from earth. The problem with that experiment is with the atomic clock. It uses a photons to determine the time but it uses calculation according to the light going at the same speed. If light os bending its slows as with the layman terms, thats how it looks on the clock. It might mean two things. One more sensical is that light bends, or the other that time travel is possible. I would say the latter is weird. And they call me crazy. Sheesh.
That experiment indirectly prove different thing than einsteinian would like. It proves that on different altitutude from earth, as it was done in the earth atmosphere behave differently.
I dont know why scientists completly ignore the counter hyphotesis? Just because they had made a new tower of babel from science and the data does not fit their believes? I am not stating it as fact. Im just puzzled.
Yes ive heard about the refraction, but mathematicly the refraction is too small in ball earth model to see a south pole star from a tropic cancer and north pole star from the tropic capricon and we clearly see them from there. Not too mention the refraction does not answer why does the clouds are lit from below when they should have bin lit from above during the sunset. Refraction states that light bends according to earth curvature. Btw how convenient no? Btw the flatearthers theory of clouds being higher then sun is funny as hell. Why are the sun higher just before the sunset? Weird stuff.
They need to make one statements as true. Either there is a refraction or there is not. And what direction? I say its from earth surface upward, but then, the only model for that to work is a concave earth. It fits exactly why we see weird phenomens on the sky and earth.
And sorry im sorry that dont operate equations but just experiments and common sense. I dont have physics degree, but science should be for insighted amateurs as well. I have master degree but not in astrophysics. You cant have every degree and every knowledge. Its impossible novadays.
P.s. sorry I dont remember if it was half the distance from equator to tropics, but it would still mean a huge refraction is needed.
