1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 01/07/2018 03:10:27 »

am I understanding things correctly when they say a black hole is black due to the event horizion? event horizon (being an effect,  not an object?) is caused by light being unable to escape the singularities gravitational field. .. correct? and I've heard that as an object approaches an event horizion it appears to approach the horizon at a slower and slower rate and you'll never observe it passing though the horizon,  it appears to "freeze" at the surface. 
I cannot make this work in my mind.  if object appears to freeze at the surface,  then black holes would not be black,  but  very red, a Doppler shifted image of everything the black hole has swallowed for it's entire existence. 
....
I cannot rationalize that scenario with my limited intelligence. how could an image still exist on the surface of the EH after said object has passed through? where does the energy come from to continue sending the light from said object back to us?
and more important,  if light cannot escape due to gravity,  does this violate the light speed law that light has to move at light speed? gravity can bend light,  does gravity slow light like density can? compress space itself?  it's space being compressed in a black hole? if space can expand,  surly it can compress. .....how does light,  traveling in space that is contacting or expanding appear to act to an observer in normal space?  I'm sorry,  that's a bunch of questions,  I've been busy lately ast work and my mind sorta just unloaded.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 30/06/2018 22:02:18 »

I do not deserve the thanks,  I've done nothing,  I'm the monkey not understanding why I can't grab the hologram banana.  bogie,  pmb, Bill,  Colin and kryptid, among others,  deserve the thanks.  I'm tempted to ask a couple black hole questions,  I think they relate too this discussion.  anyone object?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 21/05/2018 02:36:43 »

and to go back to photons having "head on collisions"...... how rare is this occurrence?  it must not be very prevalent as the universe appears black,  and if it were to be common,  the whole universe would glow somewhat. ....?

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 21/05/2018 02:33:45 »

but the higher density of photons in the strong laser would deflect the weaker laser?more so then the stronger laser was deflected?

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 21/05/2018 02:03:38 »

I had wondered if it would be able to be detected in the small space in earth available to play with,  and that led me to thinking the experiment would possibly work better with two different strength lasers,  themain laser having a high photon density, and measurements taken from a weaker laser fired "across the bow" so to speak. ....

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 20:39:47 »

could this attraction of photons be tested with lasers? fire one laser at a target,  then fire another laser across the top very close at a 90 angle?  then shutting one laser off and seeing if the light "bends " back? perhaps 90 degrees creates to short an interaction window,  perhaps almost parallel,  say cross the beams at an extremely acute angle,  like a couple moa or even seconds of degree. ...   

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 18:07:09 »

interesting that they attract each other. ... should I assume the effect has negligible impact on the inverse squire law?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 17:49:29 »

wow,  very informative. .....I'm way out of my league here,  obviously.
after reading the responses to my post,  I did wonder about something else.  do photons traveling in opposite directions in the same space affect each other? can they collide?  it doesn't seem like it should,  but I'm confident I've already proven my limited understanding of things.  one other thing. .... if two photons travel next to each other for millions of years,  will they remain on a parallel path? or could the tiny mass draw them closer to each other? or does a photon carry a charge,  and being identical,  repel each other?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 05:40:15 »

then am I way off base asking what effect light has 4.24 light years away from an object,  over millions of years,  multiplied by trillions of stars,  combined with the process repeating for billions of years with new stars replacing dying stars? 4.24 ly is distance to nearest star.  granted,  each photons effect is negligible,  but the accumulated effect must amount to something.  if we can see a photon,  then it must affect an object,  however miniscule.  surely this must add up to a phenomenal amount of "light pressure"........ and if light has mass as some theorize,  could this be the missing mass needed to make the models of the universe work correctly?  ..........perhaps this material is not so dark after all. .....

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 02:10:02 »

my apologies for my vagueness,  yes,  I meant square centimeter.  also,  I didn't describe sails and conditions very well.  assume sails are identical in all aspects except distance from light source.  assume the further sail is so far away it only receives 1 photon per square centimeter.  I realize these numbers only work for an instant,  as soon as the sail moves any distance,  acceleration will decrease,  and probably proportionally according to inverse square law. .....and I'm assuming that gravitational attraction will behave the same.  but I'm am just a primitive guessing at this.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth loo

« on: 20/05/2018 00:53:37 »

kryptid, I would definitely like for you to weigh in on the other conversation,  the formula you just posted indicates you could contribute greatly too the discussion.   I'd like to invite you to weigh in please.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73315.new;topicseen#new

I would greatly value your input

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth loo

« on: 19/05/2018 23:29:34 »

kryptid, interesting question,  but i lack the intelligence to answer it. the question somewhat relates to an ongoing discussion I'm having on another board.  I don't know how to invite people to other boards or forums,  I'm pretty new at this.  perhaps, if interested,  you can find it somehow.  it's a discussion about light and does it have weight and several branching but related lines of talk pertaining to gravity and such. perhaps you'd like to check it out if you can find it.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth loo

« on: 19/05/2018 18:15:00 »

I would think that the mirror would show us what's happening today,  a million years from now. .....

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 19/05/2018 18:09:05 »

on a cosmic scale,  a million of anything is probably a negligible number

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 19/05/2018 18:06:19 »

i had not considered if the turkey was frozen. .... I would think that would be a slight,  but, "negligible" density change.  Although definitely a hardness change.  I'm not sure how off subject that could be considered,  I'm the one talking about flies and turkeys flying around in a vacuum hitting alien cars.
I understand that the single fly impacting the car would have thus said negligible effect. .... what can
drop of water do? nothing (negligible) ..... yet over time things like the grand canyon,  and probably even our oceans them selves are created.  I have no interest in what one or 2 photons do to an object far away.  I'm going with the notion that millions of years of an endless barrage of photons,  however inversely squared,  must amount to something.  I'm sure the math could be done by someone much smarter then me.  I'll attempt to explain,  but practically guarantee I'm probably not going too use the correct terms,  so I'll take the liberty to try to think like someone smarter then i and create terms i think might be close enough.
example,  the light sail,  theoretically able to use light to get pushed,  need a relatively high "photon density " striking it to operate in a usable manner.  I'll make up a number,  let's say out needs 1 million photons per second per centimeter striking its surface to created 1g acceleration (I know those numbers are probably way off )
each photon has same impact energy,  correct? then could it not be said that 1 photon per second per centimeter would create 1 millionth of a g of thrust?  would the inverse square law balance the gravity of the two different light sails from a single light source so the both will accelerate,  one just taking a million times longer to accelerate?

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 18/05/2018 22:25:37 »

assume fly falls off, and flies a long loop Aaron's to land on car in had on collision approach

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 18/05/2018 20:22:24 »

I somewhat like the car analogy. ....perhaps I could pose a few stipulations to said scenario. ....
1)said car is driving in a vacuum
2)car has a set of alien technology frictionless tires.
3)the fly is immortal,  is able to fly inn a vacuum,  and lands oon car with same velocity or impact every time.
4)fly is very determined and lands oon car one million times over the next 10000 years.
5) fly weight is .01 grams.

does the accumulating impacts add up to the same impact a 22lb turkey hitting a vehicle one time?

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 18/05/2018 11:41:43 »

perhaps I worded that poorly. .... I didn't say disregard the inverse square law,  I said regardless,  and intended the use of regardless to acknolage the law exists,  and possible effects could co exist.....

.neg·li·gi·ble
ˈneɡləjəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.
taking this word as classically defined,  I'm surprised it's used in science. if the amount of stuff 4.24 light years away becomes so insignificant it should be regarded as nothing,  then we shouldn't be able to see other stars,  the photons would be negligible. ...no?

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 18/05/2018 02:10:18 »

please speculate away if that is within the guidelines of this forum,  as all I'm doing with my limited intelligence and education is speculating. ..... but if I'm inn contradiction to any rules regarding my primitive attempt at gaining knowledge,  then perhaps you could redirect me to amore appropriate place to speculate.  that would make me a bit sad,  I've thoroughly enjoyed this whole experience here,  and learned tremendous things,  like gravity propagating at light speed. .....my apologies if I've caused disruption.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 18/05/2018 00:38:35 »

bogie smiles,
yes,  epic fail trying to quote.
I will not even pretend to understand what you just said,  perhaps I should change my name to "star struck Neanderthal with a phone".
is what your are saying implying that light has both mass and gravity? if either or both are true,  could I mention my 4.24 light year radius sphere,  and again ask what effect that volume of photons has on its surrounding space over billions of years? most see a star as a pin point of light,  but I think otherwise.  I might be wrong,  but I don't think you can see light from the side,  only the photons headed your way.  I speculate the photons headed at right angles to ones observation point are "unseen". but nonetheless,  very much there. but again,  I'm not well educated and might be missing something. ...
but if correct,  this its a huge volume of unobserved photons,  and if they have mass (does mass indicate that they would have gravity? ) then regardless of the inverse square law,  this is a tremendously large amount of "material" affecting its environment. However minutely, over millions of years surely this must amount to something,  either with the push imparted by a photons velocity,  or a pull from the photons mass.  multiplied by the amount of estimated stars,  makes for quite a wrestling match. .....unless they just canceled each other out. ........ugh. ......