a story about special relativity,who can explain it？

[(Q)]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/37wqMvBY1c9RvNQS8
Let the speed of light in media 1 and 2 be v1 and v2, and take the width of the beam as d.
If the left end of the beam is in contact with the interface at t = 0, then the right end of the beam will only touch the interface when t = dsinθ1 / v1, at this point, the left end of the beam has advanced v2 * dsinθ1 / v1.
sinθ2=(v2*dsinθ1 / v1)/d.
n1=c/v1; n2=c/v2, then we can get the well-known law of refraction: sinθ1/sinθ2 = v1/v2 = n2/n1.
The refraction of light must be due to a change in speed, either faster or slower. From the direction of light bending through the sun, the speed is slower.

Hope my explanation can help you understand my point

You're just repeating your errors. There is no change in speed. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[(Q)]

The Doppler effect only affects the frequency of light, which affects the energy density of photons, but the total photon energy does not change and does not affect the speed of light.

This has nothing to do with the Doppler effect. You are confused.

 

[Write4U]

The Doppler effect only affects the frequency of light, which affects the energy density of photons, but the total photon energy does not change and does not affect the speed of light.

Hmmm.. does that not contradict your proposition that light does in fact slow down from refraction in a gravity field? If the slow-down is the result of an unknown density, what then could this be? Dark Matter?

 

[(Q)]

From the perspective of light bending, the light is refracted under the gravitational field. The law of refraction has clearly stated that the refraction of light is related to changes in the speed of light.

Provide a source showing that gravitational fields refract light?

 

[TonyYuan]

That seems to be supportedby this;
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

But the question remains, does spacetime (the vacuum) itself become denser in the gravity field of a massive object?

If it is a gravitational field model, the space will not become denser. If it is a general relativity model, the space will become denser.

 

[(Q)]

If it is a gravitational field model, the space will not become denser. If it is a general relativity model, the space will become denser.

Doesn't general relativity describe gravitational fields? How are they different?

 

[TonyYuan]

Hmmm.. does that not contradict your proposition that light does in fact slow down from refraction in a gravity field? If the slow-down is the result of an unknown density, what then could this be? Dark Matter?

#post 172
This is a good question. This issue was also analyzed in my previous article. I think that on the one hand, the gravitational field will cause the refraction of light, and on the other hand, because light will be pulled by gravity, the speed of light will be superimposed on the gravitational field, that is, the speed of the earth's revolution around the sun. So the speed of light relative to the earth is constant.
Note: Light is held by the gravitational field and the speed of light will be superimposed on the gravitational field. This is different from the classic flat throw theory.

 

[(Q)]

#post 172
This is a good question. This issue was also analyzed in my previous article. I think that on the one hand, the gravitational field will cause the refraction of light, and on the other hand, because light will be pulled by gravity, the speed of light will be superimposed on the gravitational field, that is, the speed of the earth's revolution around the sun. So the speed of light relative to the earth is constant.
Note: Light is held by the gravitational field and the speed of light will be superimposed on the gravitational field. This is different from the classic flat throw theory.

This is all gibberish.

 

[TonyYuan]

Provide a source showing that gravitational fields refract light?

Observation experiment on stellar light bending.

 

[(Q)]

Observation experiment on stellar light bending.

Provide a source, I'm not interested in your assertions. You need to provide sources that show and explain how gravitational fields refract light?

 

[TonyYuan]

Doesn't general relativity describe gravitational fields? How are they different?

Yes, just different models. They describe the same physical problem.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, just different models. They describe the same physical problem.

How are they different models? Explain? What are the differences?

 

[TonyYuan]

This is all gibberish.

A model can be constructed using Newton's classical physics theory and can correctly explain physical phenomena, then this model is a good model.
Black cats and white cats are good cats that can catch mice.

 

[TonyYuan]

Provide a source, I'm not interested in your assertions. You need to provide sources that show and explain how gravitational fields refract light?

Which source?

 

[(Q)]

A model can be constructed using Newton's classical physics theory and can correctly explain physical phenomena, then this model is a good model.
Black cats and white cats are good cats that can catch mice.

More gibberish.

 

[(Q)]

Which source?

Any source that will support your assertions that gravitational field refract light?

 

[TonyYuan]

How are they different models? Explain? What are the differences?

I don't know much about general relativity. If general relativity did not involve special relativity, then they would be similar. If the time formula and speed formula of special relativity are used in general relativity, then this is their difference.

 

[TonyYuan]

Any source that will support your assertions that gravitational field refract light?

Experimental observations are the most important source.

 

[(Q)]

I don't know much about general relativity. If general relativity did not involve special relativity, then they would be similar. If the time formula and speed formula of special relativity are used in general relativity, then this is their difference.

Thank you. You've now confirmed to me that you have no idea what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air out your ass.

 

[(Q)]

Experimental observations are the most important source.

And of course, you haven't posted any such experimental observations because there are none. Once again, you prove you're just blowing hot air out your ass.