Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: LDL on 04/08/2021 00:20:32

Title: Can we come up with a better picture of how light relates to gravity.
Post by: LDL on 04/08/2021 00:20:32
This is simply a thought experiment

Let a room containing two observers A and B represent an inertial frame of reference. They will measure the speed of light as it propagates across the room in one direction to be travelling at speed c, a finite speed. This is an average of the speeds in opposing directions. A true one-way measure of the speed of light is not attainable.

If one observer changes his position to a different speed within the room the fact that he cannot measure a change in the speed of one directional light from his new speed does not mean he hasnít changed his speed relationship with the speed of that light. Intuitively and logically he has. One-way speed of light remained constant while the 2nd observer was accelerated to a new speed. This is a true occurrence. The two observers in the room have different speed relationships with the speeds of light within the room.

It required a force to alter the speed relationship. Why not look at the converse idea? Perhaps changes to a field of space that affect the speeds of light are changes that can alter our position (relative to a different unaffected space) so that we retain our speed relationship with the changing field. We can only resist this change from our relative position with force which causes us to undergo change in speed relationship as the speeds of light change.

Suppose we put B in a field and the field undergoes a change such that it alters the speeds of light. The changes are balanced. We remain outside the field and view the affects.

As speed of light right increases and speed of light left decreases, and the changes are balanced, B will fall right and maintain its relative position with the speeds of light. If the speed of light left increases and the speed of light right decreases in balance, B will accelerate left and retain its relative position.

If B is held in its position by force, it will undergo changes in its relationship to the speeds of light. It is prevented from falling.

Acceleration is proportional to the rate of balanced change of the speeds of light.

Another way to look at this is to imagine our surrounding space along with its speed of light being accelerated right while we are held in our position by a force which does not allow us to fall with the accelerated space. We can say that we have been detached from our original inertial frame of reference by force as space accelerates away from us. As space accelerates away, we undergo balanced changes in speed relationship with the speeds of light.

A changing balanced field of light speed identifies an accelerated motion of space. A gravitational field.

So how does light relate to a gravitational field around a mass. A changing balanced field can be a sloped field.
The speeds of light must be in balanced change around a mass. If the inertial frame of reference that the speed of light travels through is pulled in by gravity and falls inward, a sloped balanced changing field of light speed is created.
The speed of light inbound increase while the speed of light outbound decreases as we venture closer to the mass.

Starting from an infinite distance away, the inertial frame of reference containing the speeds of light (travelling at speed c in both directions) will fall and maintain a speed equal to the gravitational escape velocity. Note the speeds of light retain their relative speeds within a falling space.

Therefore speed of light around a mass is c+v inbound and c-v outbound, v being the fall escape velocity as a function of distance. The acceleration rate of fall is determined by the rate of balanced change of the speeds of light, being caused by gravitational pull and equal to the rate of acceleration of the fall escape velocity.

We can see then how a clock maintaining a position in a gravitational field mimics a speed and undergoes relativistic effects (dilation of time and length contraction).

This seems to me a clearer picture than a ball bending a blanket.

And of course one should wonder what happens to the properties of space when changes to the speeds of light are not balanced?


 


Title: Re: Can we come up with a better picture of how light relates to gravity.
Post by: puppypower on 06/08/2021 13:24:13
This is simply a thought experiment

Let a room containing two observers A and B represent an inertial frame of reference. They will measure the speed of light as it propagates across the room in one direction to be travelling at speed c, a finite speed. This is an average of the speeds in opposing directions. A true one-way measure of the speed of light is not attainable.

If one observer changes his position to a different speed within the room the fact that he cannot measure a change in the speed of one directional light from his new speed does not mean he hasnít changed his speed relationship with the speed of that light. Intuitively and logically he has. One-way speed of light remained constant while the 2nd observer was accelerated to a new speed. This is a true occurrence. The two observers in the room have different speed relationships with the speeds of light within the room.

It required a force to alter the speed relationship. Why not look at the converse idea? Perhaps changes to a field of space that affect the speeds of light are changes that can alter our position (relative to a different unaffected space) so that we retain our speed relationship with the changing field. We can only resist this change from our relative position with force which causes us to undergo change in speed relationship as the speeds of light change.

Suppose we put B in a field and the field undergoes a change such that it alters the speeds of light. The changes are balanced. We remain outside the field and view the affects.

As speed of light right increases and speed of light left decreases, and the changes are balanced, B will fall right and maintain its relative position with the speeds of light. If the speed of light left increases and the speed of light right decreases in balance, B will accelerate left and retain its relative position.

If B is held in its position by force, it will undergo changes in its relationship to the speeds of light. It is prevented from falling.

Acceleration is proportional to the rate of balanced change of the speeds of light.

Another way to look at this is to imagine our surrounding space along with its speed of light being accelerated right while we are held in our position by a force which does not allow us to fall with the accelerated space. We can say that we have been detached from our original inertial frame of reference by force as space accelerates away from us. As space accelerates away, we undergo balanced changes in speed relationship with the speeds of light.

A changing balanced field of light speed identifies an accelerated motion of space. A gravitational field.

So how does light relate to a gravitational field around a mass. A changing balanced field can be a sloped field.
The speeds of light must be in balanced change around a mass. If the inertial frame of reference that the speed of light travels through is pulled in by gravity and falls inward, a sloped balanced changing field of light speed is created.
The speed of light inbound increase while the speed of light outbound decreases as we venture closer to the mass.

Starting from an infinite distance away, the inertial frame of reference containing the speeds of light (travelling at speed c in both directions) will fall and maintain a speed equal to the gravitational escape velocity. Note the speeds of light retain their relative speeds within a falling space.

Therefore speed of light around a mass is c+v inbound and c-v outbound, v being the fall escape velocity as a function of distance. The acceleration rate of fall is determined by the rate of balanced change of the speeds of light, being caused by gravitational pull and equal to the rate of acceleration of the fall escape velocity.

We can see then how a clock maintaining a position in a gravitational field mimics a speed and undergoes relativistic effects (dilation of time and length contraction).

This seems to me a clearer picture than a ball bending a blanket.

And of course one should wonder what happens to the properties of space when changes to the speeds of light are not balanced?


The speed of light does not change with changes in inertial reference, because the speed of light is not part of inertial references. It stands alone by itself since it is independent of inertial affects.

If you plug the speed of light into the three equations for Special Relativity we end up with discontinuities in mass, space and time. The speed of light exists in the mathematical gap where inertial reference type affects end. What does changes are the inertial components of photons, which are wavelength and frequency. We will see a red or blue shift, but the speed of light is not impacted by changes connected to inertial mass, distance or time since these are discontinuous where the speed of light plays. 

An analogy is sea level. Sea level is the same no matter if the water is in the clouds, on top of mountains, or in river and streams. Relative motions between these different positions does not change where sea level is. Sea Level is defined by the amount of water on the surface of the earth, the composition of the crust and the earth's gravity. It has nothing too do with relative motion scenarios that are variable to each other. However, these various relative scenarios do change the potentials with the constant called sea level, which shows up as energy changes between relative places; red and blue shifts. I like to call the speed of light c-level.

In terms of gravity and photons, gravity is an acceleration which has the units of d/t/t or it is one part distance and two parts time. Space-time is d-t or one part distance and one part time. The left over difference between space-time and acceleration is a second time vector. Photons undergo a time shift; frequency change, with wavelength following, so the product remains at c-level.

When gravity acts upon a cloud of mass and matter to form a star, the cloud will typically rotate. Rotation is connected to frequency; 1/t, and the second time vector. Neutron stars spin very fast due to the time potential, that gravity will release, as it lowers potential.

If you look at a star, space-time; d-t, contracts as we move toward the center and space-time expands as we move to the surface. The second time vector appears within matter and energy of the star. The highest frequencies of matter and energy come from the fusion core of the star, where the time vector of space-time has its slowest time. The two time vectors move in opposite directions.

Distance moves in the same direction in both cases. Space-time contract the most at the core reference, while material distances get smaller at he core due to pressure. But the two legs of time does not follow suit.  Time slows in terms of space-time reference, but time speed up in terms of material and photon frequencies. The tradition of space-time reference defining the entire story of time is obsolete. It ignores the obvious second time vector of matter and photons. This is where the energy is.

An interesting affect is the iron core of the earth spins faster than the surface. It takes about 400 years for the core to lap the surface. The greater frequency of rotation in the core; faster time, compared to the surface, implies a time potential difference between the surface and core. This is an easier way to model but this, but it can also be explained in other ways that are more traditional. However, this is consistent with two time vectors with one are not going along with the time vector of space-time. The second time vector can also quantum potentials with itself, with space-time more of less uniform.

One of the mistake made by the traditions is they tend to place space first, where changes of wavelength; Doppler shift and the curvature of space leads the conceptual analysis. Space is secondary to time, since distance is more of less uniform where both time vector acts, but the time vectors are opposite and the second time vector can be variable to itself. Space is taken along for the ride since c-level does not change. 
Title: Re: Can we come up with a better picture of how light relates to gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2021 13:28:48
Sea level is the same no matter if the water is in the clouds, on top of mountains, or in river and streams.
Sea level is rising.

This is secondary to time, since distance is more of less uniform when both time vector acts, but the the time vectors opposite and the second time vector can be variable to itself.
Time is not a vector; no matter how many times you try to pretend that it is.
Title: Re: Can we come up with a better picture of how light relates to gravity.
Post by: puppypower on 13/08/2021 13:07:25
Sea level is the same no matter if the water is in the clouds, on top of mountains, or in river and streams.
Sea level is rising.

This is secondary to time, since distance is more of less uniform when both time vector acts, but the the time vectors opposite and the second time vector can be variable to itself.
Time is not a vector; no matter how many times you try to pretend that it is.


If you look at a 3-D image of the earth's gravity, the gravity is not the same all over the surface of the earth. This allows sea level to rise in some places but not in other places. The oceans around my part of the world have not changed. I often wondered why the experts in climate change do not mention the variability of earth's gravity, but rather ignores it and then tries to panic the entire herd with a local change in sea level. Why depend on deception? This is less to do with science and more to do with the benefactors of science.

(https://nasaviz.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011200/a011234/himalayas_labeled_1024x576.jpg)

As far as time being a vector, time moves to the future; has a definitive direction. It does not matter if relativity is acting on the scalar of time, the vector of time is always to the future.  This may be unconventional but it is descriptive.

The concept of space-time places space before time, even though time is the dynamic variable and space is the static variable. We can measure space with a static tool like a meter stick but time requires a tool with a power supply; clock. In the case of the dead fish clock we use chemical energy. I like the idea of time-space over space-time since we place the power supply first and the  passive variable responds. This is closer to how reality works.

Gravity is an acceleration d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time. If we use time-space we have a way to directly interface the dynamic variable of photons, with the energy supply of gravity.  Currently, we interface the power supply; gravity, to the passive variable; wavelength, which then transfers to the dynamic variable; frequency. This is like using gears. It makes more sense to connected the two power supplies; gravity and frequency to alter the passive variable; wavelength; frequency modulation. 

 
Title: Re: Can we come up with a better picture of how light relates to gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 13:26:01
I often wondered why the experts in climate change do not mention the variability of earth's gravity,
Because they understand that a change with position is not the same as a change with time.

Why depend on deception?
I don't know; try asking the flat Earthers and the denialists.



This is less to do with science and more to do with the benefactors of science.
Yes... either the hippies are able to bribe the scientists to tell lies, but the petrochemical industry hasn't got any money; or the paymasters are the ones on the denialist side, fighting against the evidence.

As far as time being a vector, time moves to the future; has a definitive direction. It does not matter if relativity is acting on the scalar of time, the vector of time is always to the future.  This may be unconventional but it is descriptive.
The phrase "all crows are green" is also descriptive and wrong.
Time is still not a vector.

I like the idea of time-space over space-time since we place the power supply first and the  passive variable responds. This is closer to how reality works.
That's essentially the equivalent of saying that "wife and husband" makes a family, but "husband and wife" does not.
Time and space, while different, are equal partners in spacetime.

Gravity is an acceleration d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time.
Repeating this does not make it any less wrong.

Currently, we interface the power supply; gravity,
Gravity is not a power supply.
Hydro-electricity is solar power.

It makes more sense to
No; it doesn't make sense.
Practically none of what you say makes sense.
Title: Re: Can we come up with a better picture of how light relates to gravity.
Post by: Origin on 13/08/2021 13:33:47
As far as time being a vector, time moves to the future; has a definitive direction.
The future is not a direction.
This may be unconventional but it is descriptive.
No, it is wrong and therefore misleading.  I'm rather amazed you finally addressed this, even though your response was meaningless.
Gravity is an acceleration d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time. If we use time-space we have a way to directly interface the dynamic variable of photons, with the energy supply of gravity.
That is patently absurd.  You can't seriously believe this stuff that is so clearly wrong, can you?
Currently, we interface the power supply; gravity, to the passive variable; wavelength, which then transfers to the dynamic variable; frequency. This is like using gears. It makes more sense to connected the two power supplies; gravity and frequency to alter the passive variable; wavelength; frequency modulation. 
Why do you post such nonsense?