[Deecart]

The video debunks your explanation, besides some others.

What are you talking about ?

Here in the video :

the physicist debunk the wrong explainations we found everywhere.
He is talking at time t=717 (so around 11:50) of the video about the "official", the theoritical explanation every scientist actually accept.
I am talking about the same explaination, this one starting at time t=717.
So he is not debunking "my" explaination (it is not mine it is his own).

What i say is : This is only some theoretical explaination and we dont really have some experience that confirm the detail of the phenomenon.
So people cant refer to this (missing) experience and easily give wrong explainations.

To confirm his explaination (the official one) i say that we should try to observe the delay between the INITIAL straight ligth beam and the FINAL curved one (of course we cant see this with our bare eyes).

[alancalverd]

This is only some theoretical explaination and we dont really have some experience that confirm the detail of the phenomenon.

But we do. We can measure ε for all sorts of materials and all sorts of frequencies, and the refraction of electromagnetic radiation likewise.

[Deecart]

But we do. We can measure ε for all sorts of materials and all sorts of frequencies, and the refraction of electromagnetic radiation likewise.

Yes i know it.
But measuring ε do not explain anything.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I am talking about the same explaination, this one starting at time t=717.
So he is not debunking "my" explaination (it is not mine it is his own).

How would you explain refraction of X-ray in glass, which is refracted to the opposite direction than visible light?

[Bored chemist]

But measuring ε do not explain anything.

It tells you how "rigidly" the electrons are held in the material.
It explains why materials containing bigger atoms- like lead- have high refractive indexes.
The outer electrons in a lead ion will be far from the nucleus compared to, for example, those in a calcium ion.
Because they are further from the nucleus, they are less strongly held and can interact more strongly with the em radiation.
And thus they create a secondary emission with a larger amplitude. So they effectively slow the light down more .
This is why lead glass is prized for ornamental work because of its sparkle.

You might think that ε doesn't explain anything, but that's only because you do not understand the science.
You can also consider the variation of  ε with frequency and get an insight into dispersion..

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But we do. We can measure ε for all sorts of materials and all sorts of frequencies, and the refraction of electromagnetic radiation likewise.

How do you measure ε for all sorts of materials and all sorts of frequencies?
How is it affected by environmental factors like temperature and pressure, also external electric and magnetic fields?

[Bored chemist]

How do you measure ε for all sorts of materials and all sorts of frequencies?

Why not google that?
Why do you have this aversion to actually finding stuff out for yourself?

[Deecart]

How would you explain refraction of X-ray in glass, which is refracted to the opposite direction than visible light?

In fact this is not particular to x-ray ("the fact that it bends in the opposite direction").
And you can have the "normal" way if you start the light beam in the glass : It will bend  "normaly" wen coming out of the glass and enter in the air.
You can also use vacuum with glass instead of air with glass and probably you will also have the "normal bending".
Or you can start your light in the air and shoot into the vaccum or start your light in the vaccum and shoot in the air : you will have opposite directions of the bending.

[Deecart]

You might think that ε doesn't explain anything, but that's only because you do not understand the science.

So you do not understand how science work.
Science need real experiments specificaly designed to show something particular.
100 years ago this is how scientists did (actually they use less this method...)
Science do not rely only on reasoning : Doing  so is doing philosophy or at least mathematic when playing with properties only.

The fact that you dont understand that the refraction phenomenon need some additionnal experimentation shows that you dont understand how experiments are designed and why we do experiments.
Per example (roughly said), one experience someone need to do is : Sending 2 light beam of different intensities (one photon only would be the lightest "beam") and observing how the two beams refract : Is there some interaction between their actions ?

[Bored chemist]

So you do not understand how science work.

I listed some of the things thatmeasuring ε explains...
I was able to do that because those explanations form part of science.

Whereas the you wrote this

But measuring ε do not explain anything.

The fact that you dont understand that the refraction phenomenon need some additionnal experimentation

What additional experiments do you think we need?

Science do not rely only on reasoning

Guess again.
Some bits of science were derived by reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Galileo famously did the "tower of Pisa" experiment in order to convince other people; but he already knew what the answer must be.

[alancalverd]

How do you measure ε for all sorts of materials and all sorts of frequencies?
How is it affected by environmental factors like temperature and pressure, also external electric and magnetic fields?

Second-year undergraduate physics laboratory textbooks will get you a long way in this field, but manufacturers of electronic components (particularly cables) and systems (particularly radar) have more precise instrumentation.

[Deecart]

Guess again.
Some bits of science were derived by reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Galileo famously did the "tower of Pisa" experiment in order to convince other people; but he already knew what the answer must be.

Read again.
He dident already know (scientists do not know like that, only mathematicians and philosopher do), he supposed he was right, or there would be some paradox.
It is not because you THINK there is a paradox that you can change a theory : You must proove physicaly that ONE possibility to solve the paradox is better then some OTHER possibility to solve it:.
.
Your wikipedia link say exactly the opposite you are saying :

Although the extract does not convey the elegance and power of the 'demonstration' terribly well, it is clear that it is a 'thought' experiment, rather than a practical one. Strange then, as Cohen says, that philosophers and scientists alike refuse to acknowledge either Galileo in particular or the thought experiment technique in general for its pivotal role in both science and philosophy. (The exception proves the rule – the iconoclastic philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend, has also observed this methodological prejudice.[9]) Instead, many philosophers prefer to consider 'Thought Experiments' to be merely the use of a hypothetical scenario to help understand the way things are.

The pure reasoning helps to create some new insights, but when you do so, it remains a hypothesis.
It can help scientists to create new PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATIONS (SCIENCE=EXPERIENCE).

[Deecart]

What additional experiments do you think we need?

Some experiences linked with the verbal explanation.
Science is not only a matter of an expsilon value in a formula, it is the mater of how phenomenons are build.
Per example the refraction formula do not take in account the temporality of the full phenomenon, but unfortunatly the explanation use temporality : So the theoritical explanation is not well linked with the real phenomenon (per example).

[Bored chemist]

What additional experiments do you think we need?

Some experiences linked with the verbal explanation.
Science is not only a matter of an expsilon value in a formula, it is the mater of how phenomenons are build.
Per example the refraction formula do not take in account the temporality of the full phenomenon, but unfortunatly the explanation use temporality : So the theoritical explanation is not well linked with the real phenomenon (per example).

What additional experiments do you think we need?

OK, this time try answering the question with examples of the additional experiments you think we need.

[Bored chemist]

Read again.
He dident already know (scientists do not know like that, only mathematicians and philosopher do), he supposed he was right, or there would be some paradox.

OK. I read
"At the time when Viviani asserts that the experiment took place, Galileo had not yet formulated the final version of his law of falling bodies. He had, however, formulated an earlier version which predicted that bodies of the same material falling through the same medium would fall at the same speed.... While this story has been retold in popular accounts, there is no account by Galileo himself of such an experiment, and many historians believe it was a thought experiment."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

But you are missing the point.
You say "he supposed he was right, or there would be some paradox.".
And, because we know that reality does not create paradoxes, he knew he was right.

[Deecart]

OK, this time try answering the question with examples of the additional experiments you think we need.

I already gave you 2 experiments that "should" (at least this is my opinion) be done to validate the theoritical explanation, but it looks like you already know what you read before you read, like gallileo.

[Deecart]

And, because we know that reality does not create paradoxes, he knew he was right.

You are wrong again.
Whe are not talking about the reality here (we are not philosopher), we are talking about the REPRESENTATION of the reality.
And these representations, like these scientists use, need to be coherent. Thats all.
So we know that we can not have paradox within our representation.
Because we use logic (or it would be the end of the science, no logic, no science)

[alancalverd]

Galileo's published thought experiment should have been sufficient to disprove the Aristotelian hypothesis since if it were true you would generate not one but two very different results simultaneously from the same trial. For the uninitiated:

If heavy objects fall faster than light ones, cut a stone into two unequal parts. The heavy part will fall faster than the light one. Now tie them together. The light piece slows down the heavy one. But the heavy piece speeds up the light one. Or the whole assembly falls faster than either of its parts.

Fortunately there is no evidence that he actually did the Pisa experiment, since the effect of air resistance would indeed have slowed the lighter object more than the heavier one and thus set science back until David Scott demonstrated the truth of the thought experiment on the Moon in 1971.

[Deecart]

He had, however, formulated an earlier version which predicted that bodies of the same material falling through the same medium would fall at the same speed....

Everybody know this anecdote.
And you guess what ?
Every scientist design his own experiment having PREVIOUSLY done some reasoning.
Very rarely they do their experience by random.

[Deecart]

Fortunately there is no evidence that he actually did the Pisa experiment, since the effect of air resistance would indeed have slowed the lighter object more than the heavier one and thus set science back until David Scott demonstrated the truth of the thought experiment on the Moon in 1971.

What experience ?
Where he drop something from up the tower ? This one is folklore, he never did something like that.
He used bullets on an inclinated ramp, so the speed was low, and he used as a chronometer his own heart pulsation.
By chance he dident used bobsleigh ! Or he would have discovered some other law...