Why do we say that light bends

[36grit]

Why do we say that light bends? It's confusing. The light doesn't bend around galaxies, it's merely being divided by a complex maze of time dialations. Time is a medium, a dark matter medium with structure and algorythems. To say the speed of light is also wrong. light doesn't move, it is infinite. We should say, "The speed of time."

The speed of light is an illusion caused by a maze of time dialations.

Time is bending. The speed of light is constant, or am I just another confused author?

Edited September 6, 2015 by 36grit

[fiveworlds]

Einstein suggested that light would bend around objects with massive mass an idea called gravitational lensing.

[36grit]

But the light is not bending. It is merely being divided into paritcles and manipulated by a complex structure of bending time dialations.

[studiot]

 

I just another confused author?

 

 

From your other comments I would say yes or that you have been confused by other authors who are pseudo scientific.

 

FYI,

Light diffracts round corners (nothing to do with relativity).

Its speed depends upon the medium through which it is travelling..

The path of light can also be 'bent' by variations in the medium, we call this refraction.

 

The phrase 'the speed of time' has no meaning, unlike the phrase 'the speed of light', which does.

[36grit]

I'm less than convinced.

[pzkpfw]

I'm less than convinced.

I'm less than convinced by your attempts to redefine over a hundred years of well studied science.

 

Instead of making your "Why do we ...?" claim-wrapped-in-a-question, based on your own new science, you need to start with the very basics of that new science.

 

(And this isn't the part of the forum to do that within).

[Phi for All]

But the light is not bending. It is merely being divided into paritcles and manipulated by a complex structure of bending time dialations.

 

So the light is traveling in a straight line through curved space-time. Like a train that can only go straight, but makes turns because it's following the tracks it's on.

 

I'm less than convinced.

 

That's an argument from incredulity. If you want to remain skeptical, don't look into this further. If you want to be a skeptic (there's a difference), then you MUST figure out where the disparity is here, and either correct your misconception, or share your new insight by supporting the idea with evidence. You bring up a good point, but you also have those pesky misconceptions (light is moving, and it doesn't have an infinite length). I encourage you to satisfy your curiosity about this.

[swansont]

Ever use a lens? How can it focus light if the light doesn't bend?

[Greg H.]

Ever use a lens? How can it focus light if the light doesn't bend?

 

Your eyes work on the same principle (because they are lenses).

[36grit]

Blue shift, Red shift, Time expands and contracts between the photons relative to our eyes position and velocity. The universe is expanding as a body of time and this is what is traveling through the lenz.

 

Gravity is not an electro-magnetic particle. Wherefore it might be classified as a dark matter particle. How can a completely non-electro-magnetic particle possibly bend light that is the very definition of an electro-magnetic particle? Aghh, but we know, and it makes sense that, Gravity dialates time. Thus, my confusion and doubt.

 

This science is not new to me, but it is becoming more and more obvious as the years slowly grind.

[swansont]

Blue shift, Red shift, Time expands and contracts between the photons relative to our eyes position and velocity. The universe is expanding as a body of time and this is what is traveling through the lenz.

 

Gravity is not an electro-magnetic particle. Wherefore it might be classified as a dark matter particle. How can a completely non-electro-magnetic particle possibly bend light that is the very definition of an electro-magnetic particle? Aghh, but we know, and it makes sense that, Gravity dialates time. Thus, my confusion and doubt.

 

This science is not new to me, but it is becoming more and more obvious as the years slowly grind.

 

Lenses have nothing to do with gravity, or red/blue shifts, or the expansion of the universe.

[36grit]

Hmm, Remmber the old reals that were on the computers that helped launch that first rocket to the moon? It was a real of tape with holes in it for light to shine through. The light didn't flicker. It was always on while the computer searched and read the tapes contents, but the computer didn't read the tape, it read the light shining through the holes.

Well, that's probably not the best analogy, but the only one that I can think of right now. But if you think of the tape as being time and space, and the light being a constant in the back ground, then the movement of the light on the other side of the tape was an illusion to the observing computer that was sensing the light. That would be you in this analogy.

 

The computers senser would be the lenzs in your eyes.

[swansont]

That lenses focus light is not an illusion. The beam is collimated going into the converging lens, and afterwards it focuses down to a small spot.

[Strange]

Well, that's probably not the best analogy, but the only one that I can think of right now. But if you think of the tape as being time and space, and the light being a constant in the back ground, then the movement of the light on the other side of the tape was an illusion to the observing computer that was sensing the light. That would be you in this analogy.

 

That is a pretty meaningless analogy; I don't even know what it is supposed to be an analogy to. However, the bending of light, whether by gravity or refraction, is clearly not an illusion so I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Blue shift, Red shift, Time expands and contracts between the photons relative to our eyes position and velocity. The universe is expanding as a body of time and this is what is traveling through the lenz.

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

Gravity is not an electro-magnetic particle. Wherefore it might be classified as a dark matter particle.

 

Gravity is not any sort of particle. And certainly not a dark matter particle.

 

How can a completely non-electro-magnetic particle possibly bend light that is the very definition of an electro-magnetic particle?

 

Because gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

[36grit]

Clearly you guys have a very good understanding of how and why things work. I guess my brain just prefers a simpler, unified field theory. Right or wrong.

Thank you for your comments.

[Strange]

Right or wrong.

 

You make it sounds as if that doesn't matter; as if stuff you make up is just as valid as mathematically derived and well-tested theories.

[swansont]

Clearly you guys have a very good understanding of how and why things work. I guess my brain just prefers a simpler, unified field theory. Right or wrong.

Thank you for your comments.

 

You prefer a simple wrong answer to a complex correct one? That's scary.

[Phi for All]

Clearly you guys have a very good understanding of how and why things work. I guess my brain just prefers a simpler, unified field theory. Right or wrong.

 

Does it change your idea if the part about light having infinite length is wrong?

[Asimov]

36 Grit; Cant say I totally follow you but no, light doesnt bend. It is space- time that is bent by gravity and light goes straight through space-time. Remember, space -time is a continuuem and neither space or time is an entity unto itself. A beam of light seems to bend past a massive object but it is space-time itself, not light bending per se.The atoms in a refractive media also dont bend light. They re-direct or delay the light as it interacts with the atoms in glass for example. Lenses. Photon absorbed then emmited takes time.The light speed C is invarient and stays the same going between the intervening atoms.

[swansont]

The atoms in a refractive media also dont bend light. They re-direct or delay the light as it interacts with the atoms in glass for example. Lenses. Photon absorbed then emmited takes time.The light speed C is invarient and stays the same going between the intervening atoms.

 

So the light changes direction. IOW, it bends. (as in, it does not continue along the same path). It's a lay expression, meaning there will be a decided lack of precision it its use.

 

You are making the distinction between "light" and "photons". Photons always travel at c, but light slows down in a medium. Similarly, the photons are not bent, but the light is.

 

Beyond that, I think that "bent" is not defined precisely enough to split hairs any further.

[Janus]

You prefer a simple wrong answer to a complex correct one? That's scary.

Unfortunately, it is all too prevalent an sentiment. I remember a guy that tried to argue that physicists were making particle physics too complicated by "creating" new particles in accelerators. He held that all these particles were not "needed" to explain things and just cluttered up the model.

 

He just didn't get that the model needed to be as complicated as it was just to explain why it was even possible for these particle to be created in the accelerator.

[Asimov]

Swansont: I guess this is splitting hairs. but C is totally invarient for photons or collectively as light. A beam of light wil take longer to get from A to B in air or in glass than in vacuum of course. As photons interact with atoms in air or glass etc. they are delayed by interaction with the atoms. This takes a finite amount of time and delays the wave front but C between atoms remains C. Light doesnt bend or slow down and always goes C. Space -time bends and light goes straight through dancing between the atoms of a media at C. This doesnt contradict you, just adds some nitpicky detail. Relevant though. My perspective and I need a nap.

[Strange]

Swansont: I guess this is splitting hairs. but C is totally invarient for photons or collectively as light.

 

Your explanation only covers the "photon view". As far as a classical view of electromagnetic waves is concerned, the velocity is reduced in a medium.

[swansont]

Swansont: I guess this is splitting hairs. but C is totally invarient for photons or collectively as light. A beam of light wil take longer to get from A to B in air or in glass than in vacuum of course.

 

Meaning that light moves more slowly in a medium, so what you said is not actually true.

Space -time bends and light goes straight through dancing between the atoms of a media at C.

 

Can you cite some evidence that space-time bending near atoms is the reason for refraction?

[36grit]

 

You prefer a simple wrong answer to a complex correct one? That's scary.

 

Scary? M theory is scary. superstring theory is scary. Einstein's search for a unified field theory, not so much. At least not in my opinion.

 

Please understand, I do not beleive that I am wrong. I simply do not have the expertiese or mathmaticle background to explain the way I see things. I can't even come up wth a better analogy than the one I've already given.

Besides, if I am right, the scientific comunity will find it's way eventually. It's just taking you guys so long. And things that should have been universally understood years ago, like relativity, and time dialtion, continue to confuse the masses.They should be elementry by now.

If you think that the light is moving that's fine with me, and most importantly, it's mathamticlly correct. Rock On, I'm going back to my science fiction novel, lol. I wish you luck and happiness.

 

Cool video:

Edited September 9, 2015 by 36grit