Why do we say that light bends

[Phi for All]

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.

 

I'm in awe. I mean, if you really break this down, it's an awesome example of the effect Mssrs Dunning and Krueger have been studying.

 

Use of belief instead of reason. Doesn't have the science, can't explain it, but just KNOWS he's right and the science community is wrong (and misguided, and slow, and doesn't have his intuition about these things -- none of them, ever in history -- NONE).

 

Blaming the scientific community for the masses' inability to handle college-level physics is new, though.

[Strange]

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.

 

If all you have are analogies - no evidence and no maths - then there is zero reason for anyone to take you seriously. Not even you: why do you believe this half-formed idea when there is no evidence for it?

 

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.

 

They are. You seem to be one of the few confused by the concept.

[36grit]

Well, I don't know about proof or evidence but, many things have shaped the model in my brain. I guess one of the original epiphanies that led me to ponder would be the double slit experiment. LIght is a wave and a particle at the same time. Makes sense if, light is a particle relative to the time "mask" and it is a wave relative to it's own unified expansion.

Now, I'm curious. How does mainstream physics explain this phenominon?

[Strange]

LIght is a wave and a particle at the same time. Makes sense if, light is a particle relative to the time "mask" and it is a wave relative to it's own unified expansion.

 

As there is no reason to think that there is a "time mask" or that light is expanding, this is just nonsense that makes no sense at all.

 

 

How does mainstream physics explain this phenominon?

 

The non-locality of quantum effects. (You can think of it as the photon going through both slits.)

[36grit]

 

 

The non-locality of quantum effects. (You can think of it as the photon going through both slits.)

 

 

 

Wow, I didn't think of that. Good point. So the light exists in the two slits at the same time, and of course the camera lenses recording the event at a billion trillion frames per second but, not the target. Because the light has to actually move to hit the target. Brilliant. Yes, Makes perfect sense to me now. Thank you so much.

And now we can discuss all of those wild and cazy dimensions and universes except the obvious ones. Right?

D*mn it, I wish I was smart like you.

[Strange]

And now we can discuss all of those wild and cazy dimensions and universes except the obvious ones. Right?.

 

You mean all four of them? That is crazy.

[36grit]

One way r the other, To say, "The speed of light," is an oxymoron. Speed implies that something is moving a certain amount of distance in a certain amount of time and at the speed of light time stands still.

[Strange]

One way r the other, To say, "The speed of light," is an oxymoron. Speed implies that something is moving a certain amount of distance in a certain amount of time and at the speed of light time stands still.

 

It takes light 8 minutes to travel the 150 km from the Sun to the Earth, so you are obviously wrong.

And on a more everyday level, we use radar systems that calculate distance by measuring the time it takes for "light" (radio waves) to travel to a target and back. So obviously the speed of light is not an oxymoron.

 

And the same technique is used to measure the (changing) distance to the moon by bouncing light off reflectors placed on the surface.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

One way r the other, To say, "The speed of light," is an oxymoron. Speed implies that something is moving a certain amount of distance in a certain amount of time and at the speed of light time stands still.

 

If one could look at the frame of the photon, perhaps one could make this argument. But that is not a valid frame; we have no physics that describes the passage of time from a photon's point of view. We are in a different frame, and in that frame it takes time for a photon to get from point A to point B.

[36grit]

 

we have no physics that describes the passage of time from a photon's point of view.

 

 

Of course not, that's because time does not pass from a photon's point of view. And there is no distance either. Wherefore, photons cannot move and that's what I said, "Why do we say the speed of light instead of the speed of time?" and that, "the movement of light is an illusion."

Perhaps in time we will find a better understanding of the quatum field, aka the infinite planes in my brain, lol.

Edited September 11, 2015 by 36grit

[Strange]

Of course not, that's because time does not pass from a photon's point of view. And there is no distance either. Wherefore, photons cannot move and that's what I said, "Why do we say the speed of light instead of the speed of time?" and that, "the movement of light is an illusion."

Perhaps in time we will find a better understanding of the quatum field, aka the infinite planes in my brain, lol.

 

1. You skipped the part that said "that is not a valid frame". Which is slightly dishonest.

 

2. You still haven't addressed the fact that we can measure the speed of light.

[swansont]

 

 

Of course not, that's because time does not pass from a photon's point of view. And there is no distance either. Wherefore, photons cannot move and that's what I said, "Why do we say the speed of light instead of the speed of time?" and that, "the movement of light is an illusion."

Perhaps in time we will find a better understanding of the quatum field, aka the infinite planes in my brain, lol.

 

You can't get from "we have no physics to describe that" to a conclusive statement about what's going on. That's pure conjecture on your part. But that's moot, since we aren't in the photon's frame. From any inertial frame of reference, photons move at c.

 

Furthermore, argument from personal incredulity is pretty weak tea.

[36grit]

I guess the big speculative question here is, How can an entity existing in a realm of no time, and no space move?

The only way I can come up with is that space and time is being created, and/or expanding faster than light. Is this possible?

[Strange]

I guess the big speculative question here is, How can an entity existing in a realm of no time, and no space move?

 

The answer is that it doesn't exist in a realm of no time and no space.

 

For one thing, that is not a valid extrapolation to a photon frame of reference (you can tell this is so because it involves division by zero).

 

For another thing, we measure the photons speed in our frame of reference.

 

But as this has been explained a couple of times already, I assume you prefer to remain ignorant.

[swansont]

I guess the big speculative question here is, How can an entity existing in a realm of no time, and no space move?

The only way I can come up with is that space and time is being created, and/or expanding faster than light. Is this possible?

 

An inertial coordinate system is a convenience for describing kinematic behavior. It's not a "realm". This isn't Narnia.

[36grit]

Divide by zero? How much does light weigh? Look, a drop of water but, a paritcle in a cresting wave. I'm not dividing by zero but, nature is. Somehow. either that or I"m living in a different dimension,lol. By the ocean of course.

I don't know much but, I do know this: That light is contstant. and that there is a universal constant, and that non-locality of quantum particles is a fact jack.

and that"

The universe is expanding, that is, time and distance is expanding and that time can be bent,stretched, twisted, and dialiated and that the older I get the faster it goes, and it goes faster and faster and faster unless, It's traveling at the speed of light, or stands still to burn a black hole

and that:

I will learn to navigate the infinite dimension before anyone else even admits that there is one. Because the photons frame is where I live. Well, not really, But actually we do think at the speed of light so, Yeah but that's a whole knew conversation. I doubt if I will ever have antother hypothisis or another theory that will include light moving relative to the unwarped atomic time frame.

Edited September 12, 2015 by 36grit

[Strange]

That light is contstant.

 

What does that mean? Light is not constant: night is dark and day is bright.

 

and that there is a universal constant

 

There are many universal constants.

 

The universe is expanding, that is, time and distance is expanding

 

Time is not exanding (I'm not even sure what that would mean).

 

The rest of your post is just nonsense.

[Phi for All]

Divide by zero? How much does light weigh? Look, a drop of water but, a paritcle in a cresting wave. I'm not dividing by zero but, nature is. Somehow. either that or I"m living in a different dimension,lol. By the ocean of course.

I don't know much but, I do know this: That light is contstant. and that there is a universal constant, and that non-locality of quantum particles is a fact jack.

and that"

The universe is expanding, that is, time and distance is expanding and that time can be bent,stretched, twisted, and dialiated and that the older I get the faster it goes, and it goes faster and faster and faster unless, It's traveling at the speed of light, or stands still to burn a black hole

and that:

I will learn to navigate the infinite dimension before anyone else even admits that there is one. Because the photons frame is where I live. Well, not really, But actually we do think at the speed of light so, Yeah but that's a whole knew conversation. I doubt if I will ever have antother hypothisis or another theory that will include light moving relative to the unwarped atomic time frame.

 

So many of your "facts" are wrong. You use terms like "dimension" and it's clear you don't understand them in the context of science. There is no "infinite dimension" for you to navigate, dimensions aren't alternate universes. You've made a basic error of claiming a frame of reference for photons, but there isn't one because there's no frame of reference where they're at rest.

 

You're basing your ideas on flawed data that you've turned into flawed information. It's like you're building a bridge using defective materials, using a process that doesn't guarantee structural safety. You're coming to a science discussion site, trying to rewrite mainstream science, and you're talking gibberish while you do it.

 

It's like you've come to the pool hall to tell all the pool sharks how the game is really played, and then you proceed to talk about ten-sided tables, cues made from cardboard, and square billiard balls. To everyone else, it's pretty obvious you never went to pool school, but it does take balls to walk in and tell everyone they're wrong, so we're trying to help you out. I hope you're going to mix some listening in with your adamant stance process.