Is This Fire Chemistry Boo Sell

[Rhawkins5555]

The movement of the sun comes from the light in the sun it comes from a heavy light that comes from the air it makes its way though the sun it has a straight sun

[jim360]

If it's no longer moving in the same direction what else do you call it other than bent?

I'm enjoying this only in a sort of twisted sense. It's fun to see basic physics explained wrongly by someone who's misinformed. Especially when they are trying to explain it to someone who *does* know what they are talking about.

[Zacs-Master]

As my link says
'light travels along geodesics, which are approximately straight lines in most circumstances that humans encounter in everyday life, but are curved by gravity'

This reinforces the 'observability' factor I've mentioned a couple of times.

[Zacs-Master]

I think TD is gradually accepting he's wrong. Ye cannae alter the laws of physics, Jim.

[TheDevil]

"if it's no longer moving in the same direction what else do you call it other than bent?"

You could call it "reflected" or even refracted.

At the point of refraction or reflection the light may appear bent, but before the disorder and after the light travels in a straight line.

Not until it hits a surface does it get reflected or refracted into a different direction and this is due to a change in situation. IE, going through the air and then hitting water.

[Bazile]

One thing is certain - my replicator isn't working

[TheDevil]

"Ye cannae alter the laws of physics, Jim."

Aye and the general understating of light is that once produced it travels in a straight line.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/171-light-basics

[jim360]

And if the light gets continuously refracted?

[TheDevil]

How would that be possible?


If yo were teaching Physics Jim, would you tell your class that "light bends" or would you say that it travels in a straight line?

[nescio]

this is nearly going the way of the man walking half a mile and then turning back to his starting point "puzzle" from last year :-)

[jim360]

It's generally accepted as a good approximation that holds in flat spaces and at large distance scales. Please don't mistake a good approximation, that is known to break in many situations, for an exact truth.

[Zacs-Master]

Debating these things is fine but when one of the participants fails to accept multiple elements of evidence it just becomes like banging your head on a brick wall.

[TheDevil]

Snell's law, Jim. The light would travel in a straight line until it is refracted again. In between refraction's there will be straight lines.

[TheDevil]

"Debating these things is fine but when one of the participants fails to accept multiple elements of evidence it just becomes like banging your head on a brick wall."

If you feel that way go have a lay down. I'm not banning on about the same thing if you observe, you can see discussion is evolving.

[Spicerack]

Albert would have stayed in the Patents Office after an hour with TD.

[nescio]

yep, it definitely is

[Zacs-Master]

No it's not. You're refusing, despite links to learned documents, to accept that light does bend.

Gravitational lensing has been known about for quite some time and has been observed by Hubble.

[jim360]

*when* I teach physics, it depends in what level I'm teaching. I'd have no hesitation in saying that light travels in straight lines unless it retracts, because , as I say, it's a good approximation and there's no need to overcomplicate in a high school lesson. But it's also not entirely correct.

[TheDevil]

lensing doesn't equate that what you're seeing is the case. In fact, a fish eye camera would indicate the opposite.

[Zacs-Master]

'lensing doesn't equate that what you're seeing is the case'

Sorry, I'm not even sure what that means.

[jim360]

I'm well aware of Snell's Law, TD. It doesn't undermine my points, or ZM's, and indeed you'd know this with more in-depth knowledge of the subject.