Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jerrygg38 on 10/07/2016 22:59:14
-
Why do photons slow in a strong gravitational field?
A photon is a bipolar self-propelled electric motor. It has an equal amount of plus and minus charges. It is electrically balanced but has a rotating magnetic field. In our area of space upon the Earth the gravitational field is low and the light speed is C. In pure free space the light speed will be slightly higher. When we have very strong gravitational fields, the light speed will be lower. In a black hole the light speed can reach zero. Why do photons slow?
Let us look at an area of space where there is a strong variation in the gravitational field. Two sister photons are emitted and one travels in a low density gravitational field and the sister travels in a high density gravitational field. We have an observer traveling at the speed of light and looking at both photons.
The observer looks at the null point of the photons and observes that the first photon arrives at a distance first. The second photon in the high density gravitational field arrives later. He comes to the conclusion that the first wave jumped a certain distance and quickly moved on in its travels. He concludes that the second photon jumped a certain distance but stopped for a greater period of time. Thus the strong gravitational field caused a greater time delay. That is one way of looking at it.
Yet that may not be the best way. The first photon merrily screws itself through space. It is self- propelled but it still must encounter all the dot-waves within the gravitational field. This causes a distributed time delay. Thus instead of a delay in the jump, we get a continuous delay in the photon's waveshape. In effect the internal clock within the photon has slowed.
If we just look at the waveshape from the independent observer, we find that the wavelength is shorter and the light speed is slower. Normally a shorter wavelength means a higher energy level but a lower light speed means a lower energy level. Thus the photons energy never changed.
The slow photon will enter a period of space where the gravitational field is low and linear. The observer will then see that the photon is traveling the same speed as its sister. It will have the same energy as its sister. However it will have lost time and will not be able to catch up to its sister.
The observer will feel sorry for the slow photon but unless they encounter another section of space with opposite gravitational conditions the two sisters will never meet again.
-
Why do photons slow in a strong gravitational field? Comment. Good question. Einstein might be correct. I have been thinking of possible causes.
A photon is a bipolar self-propelled electric motor. It has an equal amount of plus and minus charges. It is electrically balanced but has a rotating magnetic field. In our area of space upon the Earth the gravitational field is low and the light speed is c. Comment. I think less than c, lets call it c'.
In pure free space the light speed will be slightly higher. Comment. Yes, according to Einstein light can only reach c at infinity from mass.
When we have very strong gravitational fields, the light speed will be lower. Comment. Einstein says yes.
In a black hole the light speed can reach zero. Comment. Yes, at a super blackhole.
Why do photons slow? Comment. I reckon that the photaenos emanating from a photon interact with other photaenos (emanating from mass)(& emanating from other photons) & the resulting photaeno congestion slows the photaenos & the slowed photaenos send a feedback to the main body of the photon thusly slowing the main body. U could call this photaeno-drag.
Let us look at an area of space where there is a strong variation in the gravitational field. Two sister photons are emitted and one travels in a low density gravitational field and the sister travels in a high density gravitational field. We have an observer traveling at the speed of light and looking at both photons. The observer looks at the null point of the photons and observes that the first photon arrives at a distance first. The second photon in the high density gravitational field arrives later. He comes to the conclusion that the first wave jumped a certain distance and quickly moved on in its travels. He concludes that the second photon jumped a certain distance but stopped for a greater period of time. Thus the strong gravitational field caused a greater time delay. That is one way of looking at it. Comment. I dont follow.
Yet that may not be the best way. The first photon merrily screws itself through space. It is self- propelled but it still must encounter all the dot-waves within the gravitational field. This causes a distributed time delay. Thus instead of a delay in the jump, we get a continuous delay in the photon's waveshape. In effect the internal clock within the photon has slowed. Comment. This means that the photon is slowed, which slows its clock, which slows the photon. Why not just stop at "this means that the photon is slowed".
If we just look at the waveshape from the independent observer, we find that the wavelength is shorter and the light speed is slower. Normally a shorter wavelength means a higher energy level but a lower light speed means a lower energy level. Comment. Yes i think that the frequency does not change.
Thus the photons energy never changed. Comment. Yes i think ok.
The slow photon will enter a period of space where the gravitational field is low and linear. The observer will then see that the photon is traveling the same speed as its sister. Comment. I dont follow.
It will have the same energy as its sister. However it will have lost time and will not be able to catch up to its sister. The observer will feel sorry for the slow photon but unless they encounter another section of space with opposite gravitational conditions the two sisters will never meet again. Comment. I dont follow.
-
The topic question? Because they, photons, do, and science has a very good reason why they do, despite the fact other reasons could exist.
Who wants to argue with science?
-
The topic question? Because they, photons, do, and science has a very good reason why they do, despite the fact other reasons could exist. Who wants to argue with science?
Science does not yet have any sort of reason why photons slow near mass, no very good reason, no half good reason, no slightly good reason, no reason at all. Einsteins two math tricks where he introduces two such slowings are both nonsense, they are not real reasons. For one thing nothing of Einstein's SR or GR is real, all of it is a math-trick model which gives goodish answers in some instances, no reality in sight, not even a half realistic math-model, merely the lowest form of model, a math-trick, with no realistic foundation of any sort.
There is no science there to argue with~about. At present here on this thread i am merely arguing about the lack of science to argue about, i am not really arguing about science, there is none.
We need a realistic theory for slowing re what happens at the atomic & sub-atomic level. The answer will involve aether.
Lets look at Einstein's SR & GR. If ticking dilates near mass (according to Einstein)(he says time dilates)(another silly notion) then this can be used to explain fasting of light or (if u like) slowing, depending on postulates. Likewise if length contracts in the radial direction near mass (2 directions, inwards & outwards) then this too can be used to explain fasting of light or slowing, depending on postulates. But Einstein (with no micro-explanation & no postulates & no logic & no explanation) predicts that TD & LC both produce slowing of light near mass. And with no empirical evidence.
Einstein's 1915 hijacking of Huygens bending-refraction equations (to predict 1.75 arcsec) was a leap in the dark, needing further postulates (which never came).
The 1919 eclipse confirmation of 1.75 arcsec (double the previous estimate of 0.87 arcsec by Soldner) for sure supported Einstein's theory, as do more accurate modern measurements, however Einsteinians trumpet any such result as being proof (no it aint)(support yes, proof no).
-
Excellent.
Yet I'm thinking science, contemporary science, can ditch the post, right?
-
however Einsteinians trumpet any such result as being proof (no it aint)(support yes, proof no).
There's no such thing as proof in physics anyway. Everything is about evidence.
-
however Einsteinians trumpet any such result as being proof (no it aint)(support yes, proof no).
There's no such thing as proof in physics anyway. Everything is about evidence.
Yes, here is the evidence that i see. Shapovalov 2013 wrote an article that explains his formula describing major disturbances in the bending of light at the Sun which includes 1,500 terms including evection variation & annual inequality etc. He calculates that for future eclipses up until 2072 the expected bending must be as small as 1.72 arcsec & as big as 2.24 arcsec. Yet recent modern measurers had no trouble at all in trumpeting 1.750 arcsec (satellite readings) & 1.75000 arcsec (VLBI). Do u smell anything here?
We need more jerrygg38's looking for a proper theory for slowing of light near mass (if it exists)(which it probably does).
-
Yet recent modern measurers had no trouble at all in trumpeting 1.750 arcsec (satellite readings) & 1.75000 arcsec (VLBI). Do u smell anything here?
Yes, and what smells is the claim that high precision measurements of the lensing found it to be 1.75000 arcsec exactly, whereas I calculated according to the relativity equation that the lensing should be more like 1.74945 arcsec. Where is the source of this 1.75000 arcsec claim of yours?
-
Yet recent modern measurers had no trouble at all in trumpeting 1.750 arcsec (satellite readings) & 1.75000 arcsec (VLBI). Do u smell anything here?
Yes, and what smells is the claim that high precision measurements of the lensing found it to be 1.75000 arcsec exactly, whereas I calculated according to the relativity equation that the lensing should be more like 1.74945 arcsec. Where is the source of this 1.75000 arcsec claim of yours?
Failure of Einstein;s theory of light deflection and non-zero photon mass -- M W Evans & H Eckardt.
Evans says that NASA Cassini measured 1.75 arcsec (but i think this was based on microsec delay not on arcsec angle).
Evans says that the latest satellite data shows 1.75 arcsec +- 0.0005 arcsec. I think this means 1.7500 +- 0.0005 arcsec (i dont know whether this is based on microsec delay or on arcsec angle) .
But this is not the reference that i was looking for, that ref said 1.750 arcsec, measured by satellite (not during an eclipse i think), & it was based on arcsec angle (ie the real deal)(ie direct bending)(not some silly sort of indirect bending due to delay which then has to be crunched throo equations to give a faux-number for faux-arcsec).
Lecture IX: Weak field tests of GR: the gravitational redshift, deflection of light, and Shapiro delay -- Christopher M Hirata (2012).
This says that the best optical measurements of bending of starlight was by the Hipparcos astrometric satellite, 1997, which gave gamma = 0.997 +-0.003. I think gamma relates to 1.75 arcsec. Measurements were done at angles of 47 deg to 133 deg from the Sun. I think that this is equal to 1.7448 +-0.0052, which i think means 1.745 arcsec (not 1.750 arcsec).
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light -- Clifford M Will -- 2015.
Says that Hipparcos the optical astronomy satellite measured 1.75 arcsec with 0.2 % error -- which i think means 1.75 arcsec +- 0.0035 arcsec, which i think means 1.750 arcsec (& is direct bending)(not indirect).
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/12249/saturn-bound-spacecraft-tests-einsteins-theory/
Re the indirect bending of 1.75000 arcsec i havnt been able to find that source.
Progress in Measurements of the Gravitational Bending of Radio Waves Using the VLBA -- E Fomalont et al.
This mentions that in 2005 the VLBA gave gamma = 0.9998 +-0.0003.
And that Shapiro in 2004 got 0.9998 +-0.0004.
Lebach in 1995 got 0.9996 -0.0017
Robertson in 1991 got 1.0002 +-0.0010.
Bertotti in 2002 got 1.00002 +-0.00002 (Cassini).
Measurement of the Solar Gravitational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Data, 1979-1999 -- S S Shapiro et al.
Shapiro in 2004 got 0.9998 +-0.0004.
-
.............The Devil's Advocate
Let us get carried away here , and adopt a simple , Einsteinian view of this subject .
Light traveling through space is passing through a space/time matrix . It something , not nothing. If one accepts that gravity draws in and concentrates this matrix , then it follows that a denser S/T matrix would slow light in a manner very similar to water or glass . Different densities would slow it by different amounts , ergo a more dense region ( time period ) would slow it more , and light generated within a dense S/T region would emitted at a lower frequency as well .
Alright ! There's your delayed light , and your redshift , all wrapped up in one potent picture .
Enjoy !...P.M. .
*For a more comprehensive read on this subject ; NSF thread : How does the expansion of space work?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index/php?topic=79683.new;topicseen#new
-
.............The Devil's Advocate
Let us get carried away here, and adopt a simple, Einsteinian view of this subject .
Light traveling through space is passing through a space/time matrix. It something, not nothing. If one accepts that gravity draws in and concentrates this matrix, then it follows that a denser S/T matrix would slow light in a manner very similar to water or glass. Different densities would slow it by different amounts, ergo a more dense region ( time period ) would slow it more, and light generated within a dense S/T region would emitted at a lower frequency as well.
Alright ! There's your delayed light, and your redshift, all wrapped up in one potent picture. Enjoy !...P.
Everything can be explained by an infinite number of theories. The problem being to pick the most logical. Your micro explanation involves spacetime being made denser by the nearness of mass, whereas Einsteinians merely say that space is contracted & time is dilated, which they prefer to call a bending of spacetime -- no mention of spacetime being changed in any other way (& no micro explanation for that macro LC & TD). The first thing that comes to my mind is that light could just as easily be said to fast not slow by the denser spacetime. So what would nextly help is if u made a listing of your new postulates which give the needed results. And the logicality of those postulates would then help u-me-us to decide on the logicality of your denseness theory. Offhand i dont see how ticking can be made denser, & how length contraction can be made denser, ie how spacetime can be made denser. Which reminds me that Einstein despite the passing of 50 years eventually had no more explanations or postulates for his bending of spacetime than u (i think) have for your densification of spacetime.
-
You have a good point , in that we don't exactly know what S/T is comprised of . Given that it appears to follow the size/time dictates of Lorentz theory , it is logical to presume that it gets denser as it is drawn in (concentrated and compressed) . This logic train does seem to be supported by 1/2 century of Relativity experiments , so I will remain invested in Einstein's "Contraction" , not the bending of "they" .
Counterpoints welcome .
.......P.M.
-
You have a good point , in that we don't exactly know what S/T is comprised of . Given that it appears to follow the size/time dictates of Lorentz theory , it is logical to presume that it gets denser as it is drawn in (concentrated and compressed) . This logic train does seem to be supported by 1/2 century of Relativity experiments , so I will remain invested in Einstein's "Contraction" , not the bending of "they" . Counterpoints welcome ........P.M.
Einsteinian relativity has zero to do with Lorentzian relativity, but Einstein was happy to link his to Lorentz's to give his some additional respectability. Einstein's relativity has no micro foundation (it is a math-trick macro model)(Lorentz's has an electro magnetic micro foundation). Einstein's equation for gamma looks the same as Lorentz's equation but it aint the same, the v term means something different.
Someone calls it the fabric of spacetime. Fabric is a 2-dimensional thing. But if spacetime & the bending of spacetime are 3D then they should have called it the sponge of spacetime. However i suppose that relative velocity is only ever a 2D thing (if u select suitable frames), praps thats why they were happy with fabric. Hencely your densification need only be a 2D thing i suppose.
Aether is a 3D thing, a fluid if u like -- probably non-compressible, in which case densification aint possible.
And aether forms free photons (light), which can form loops to become confined photons (particles). And photaenos emanating from the main body of a photon gives us charge fields (which can give electro fields & magneto fields).
Aether is annihilated (somehow) in mass (ie in photons), & aether flows into mass to replace the lost aether, giving aetherwind, & the acceleration of the wind gives us gravity & mass & inertia.
Anyhow the key to the value of c is photaenos. And the key to the slowing of c near mass is photinos. And the key to the slowing of c in glass water air is photaenos. Not forgetting that c is always c+v or c-v, where v is the aetherwind.
Not forgetting that there are two c's -- real c & apparent c -- because our metre rods suffer Lorentzian contraction due to v, & our clocks suffer ticking dilation due to v (which usually exactly negates the metre's contraction).
That is how aetherists think. But i reckon that aetherists are wrong. If c is reduced near mass then surely in addition to v (the aetherwind) affecting length & ticking (in accordance with gamma) surely we must account for c reducing to c' near mass, & furthermore c' reduces to c" in glass water air plasma. Surely this gives a 2D & 3D length contraction, & surely this in turn affects ticking. This needs another kind of gamma (or an additional kind of gamma), & the new equation will include c & c' or c".
But the original posting merely asks about slowing of light near mass (gravity). The above implications re length contraction & ticking dilation need their own thread.
Anyhow, photaenos interact with other photaenos, thusly slowing light from c to c' or c" (primary slowing).
And this means that light affects light, & charge fields & em fields (photaenos) affect light -- it aint just mass (gravity).
And when i say affects i dont just mean the affect on the speed of light -- also affected is frequency, & direction.
And when i say that fields affect light i dont mean the nett fields (the nett fields might be zero), it is the total flux not the nett flux that gives photaeno congestion -- & congestion gives us photaeno-drag.
Together with the aetherwind fasting light (c'+v) or slowing light (c'-v) (secondary slowing).
U heard it here.
-
And photinos emanating from the main body of a photon gives us charge fields (which can give electro fields & magneto fields).
Are you sure you know what a photino is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photino
-
And photaenos emanating from the main body of a photon gives us charge fields (which can give electro fields & magneto fields).
Are you sure you know what a photino is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photino.
Yes i am aware of the photino of the standard model. I would like to use a different name, but i karnt think of a good one. Luckyly the photino of the standard model duznt exist (likewize about a half of their other faux particles).
Their photino is supposed to be the smallest or least massive possible particle. My photaeno is a part of every photon, & possibly has its own mass (ie in addition to the mass of the main central body of the photon).
My photaeno forms the charge field. And the charge field forms the other two fields.
The gravity field being a different kind of field having little to do with photaenos (except that if photaenos have mass then they must of course add to the gravity field)(& i suspect that they do have mass).
My photaenos are perhaps lots of little anti-tornadoes of the aether, emanating from the (helical) main body of the photon (& they are a part of the photon). The main body of the photon annihilates aether & aether flows in. The inflow creates lots of little tornadoes (photaenos). Ordinary tornadoes flow upwards away from the ground, whereas photaenos flow downwards (inwards)(hencely anti-tornadoes)(not important). Photaenos propagate outwards, probly at a speed of c (or c' or c"), possibly to infinity. Photaeno congestion (from other photaenos) slows the outwards propagation of photaenos & this slowing feeds back & slows the main body of the photon.
I think that photaenos dont move along with the main body of the photon, i think they are fixed, & they shed at the rear of the main body (how long is a photon?). I dont know what status a shed-orphaned-photaeno has -- do they keep propagating or what -- do they gradually fizzle out like a proper tornado (in which case they wont reach to infinity).
And i dont think that photaenos swing around the main body (like a lighthouse), but i am still thinking re that stuff (i need to explain how a charge field makes an em field).
-
Call it a sponge if you like , I do . Einstein did indirectly , along with many . Your theories and lingo are a bit obscure for me , I prefer simpler descriptive terms and imagery . I do see , however , that your processes do not disprove my main contention ; that S/T can be compressed/expanded , and that such can result in the alteration of local lightspeed .
Alright , folkses !
P.M.
-
Call it a sponge if you like , I do . Einstein did indirectly , along with many . Your theories and lingo are a bit obscure for me , I prefer simpler descriptive terms and imagery . I do see , however , that your processes do not disprove my main contention ; that S/T can be compressed/expanded , and that such can result in the alteration of local lightspeed .
Alright , folkses ! P.M.
Spacetime is a mathtrick model with no physical substance other than LC & TD. U need an aether or something that compresses. I dont think that ideas can be easily proved or disproved, & if they were then all that u-me need to do is to invent a sub-idea to fill the hole. And there is always a hole. In the end it comes down to a comparison of who has the prettiest or ugliest hole.
-
First off , it is accepted physics that , although it's not matter , it's not nothing either , something is there .
Secondly , the emphasis on pretty vs ugly holes convinces me these posts belong in an abnormal psychology thread .
-
First off , it is accepted physics that , although it's not matter , it's not nothing either , something is there .
Secondly , the emphasis on pretty vs ugly holes convinces me these posts belong in an abnormal psychology thread .
Holes vary, some are deep, some have sharp edges, some have ragged edges -- u-me-we need to look for holes in theories, & we compare holes, & then we keep looking for a better theory with a prettier hole.
Science is in an Einsteinian dark age -- the science mafia rules -- abnormal psychology it might be.
-
...............Logical Deduction
If one presumes that light can only traverse a certain amount of space -time substrate in a certain amount of time , then logically , gravitational compression of S.T. would result in longer traverse times for a given distance . The alternative concept is that of ST as a virtual river . This would explain light being unable to overcome a "river" moving "faster" than it can . Alright , time will tell !
P.M.
-
...............Logical Deduction
If one presumes that light can only traverse a certain amount of space -time substrate in a certain amount of time , then logically , gravitational compression of S.T. would result in longer traverse times for a given distance . The alternative concept is that of ST as a virtual river . This would explain light being unable to overcome a "river" moving "faster" than it can . Alright , time will tell ! P.M.
I think that SR~GR says that light always travels at the same speed in its own frame (ie c kmps) but that in a gravity field the light's frame suffers time dilation which makes that light appear to be slower to observers who are located in a weaker gravity field, plus the light's frame suffers length contraction in a radial direction (two radial directions)(in & out) which to the outside observer further slows the light in thems two radial directions -- hencely the slowing is apparent & relative (at least thats what i think Einsteinians think).
In my aetheric universe the speed of light c is variable, c is only ever fully achieved at a location well away from any mass or other photons or other radiation (ie c is never fully achieved). This is because photons are slowed by photaeno-drag, the photaenos emanating from the main central helical body of a photon are slowed when they fight with other photaenos, all fighting for the use of the aether (a photaeno being a vibration or spin or something of the aether)(& aether does not have an infinite capability in that regard). The slowing or drag of the photaeno feeds back to the main body thusly slowing the main body too.
Or if u like u can simply say that the longitudinal progress of the main helical body is likewize slowed for the same reasons as the outwards progress of the photaenos are slowed (no photaeno feedback needed)(simpler really). I suppose that we can give this drag its own name, eg photon drag.
Photaeno drag might be equal to photon drag, or not (i havent thort this throo).
Photaeno drag affects the speed of radiation (eg em fields)(em fields might travel at c)(or i should say at c', ie less than c).
Photon drag affects the speed of light c, c is usually reduced to say c' (which might not be equal to the c' mentioned for the speed of an em field).
The reduced speed c' probly doesnt depend on direction (but praps it does).
-
................Consider this .
The center of great intergalactic voids , where space-time is less compressed than here . What would you expect to find in these inflating voids ?
P.M.
-
................Consider this .
The center of great intergalactic voids , where space-time is less compressed than here . What would you expect to find in these inflating voids ? P.M.
Conrad Ranzan's DSSU theory says that the infinite universe is made up of large cosmic cells, each cell having areas of concentrations of stars etc, & with areas of voids -- however every inch is filled with aether of constant density but varying speed (aetherwind).
-
Not sure what aether wind is , but I'd be willing to bet it's less dense in intergalactic voids .
P.M.
-
Not sure what aether wind is , but I'd be willing to bet it's less dense in intergalactic voids . P.M.
Aetherwind is what an MMX detects (fringeshift) & measures (kmps)(if calibration is accurate)(ie kmps/fringeshift).
On Earth the aetherwind is about 500 kmps, blowing south to north about 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis, RA 4:30.
In the best aether theories that i see the aether has a constant density, but a varying speed.
Conrad Ranzan mentions cosmic voids & also zones of concentration of galaxies.
-
When you say "gravitational field" you realize nobody knows what Gravity is right. So what is that field then?
-
When you say "gravitational field" you realize nobody knows what Gravity is right. So what is that field then?
I daresay that there are lots of theories re what is gravity. And all of these will be compatible with having some sort of gravity field.
For aetherists a GF can be defined in one or two ways. A simple way is to have the field describe the force at any location &/or time. Or one could get closer to the cause, which is primarily the acceleration of the aether flow flowing into matter where it is annihilated -- in which case the GF could be defined in terms of that-there aether acceleration.
For Einsteinians there is no force, gravity is due to a bending of spacetime -- in which case the GF might be a description of the way that spacetime bending varies with location &/or time.
Or on the other hand one doesnt have to know the micro cause of gravity -- but one can nonetheless well describe the measured force field & how it varies with location &/or time.
In any case no matter how much u know or think u know there will always be an underlaying mystery -- meaning that we will never fully understand anything -- every answer raises an even more difficult mystery.
-
When you say "gravitational field" you realize nobody knows what Gravity is right. So what is that field then?
The field is a measure of the attraction a test mass (1kg) feels towards another mass. This can be measured as a force or as an acceleration eg g.
Relativity doesn’t say there is no force, just looks on it as a fictitious force (ie frame dependant, as with centrifugal force). The force is the one you measure every time you step on the bathroom scales and is very real.