# Gravities Influence On Light

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Prosoothus, Jul 28, 2009.

1. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
And I asked you how you know that is DOES push photons. I didn't avoid the question, I stated that GR has never been shown to be wrong. What you are proposing is not consistent with GR, and so YOU have to explain to ME why you're right.

This is how science works. It's not a bunch of people getting high and coming up with ideas to show how clever they are, and talking out of their asses. That's called going to a party with an English humanities student.

As it stands, this is more or less how I feel about the claims that you've made.

As with all claims that the first postulate of SR is wrong (constancy of the speed of light), this one is no different. You can test that the speed of light is constant in different reference frames. It HAS been done. Here, I'll save you some work.

I don't think me understanding your idea is as much of a problem as you understanding the scientific method/science in general.

3. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Acitnoids,

There was simply no reason for my thread to be in Pseudoscience. The basic assumption in my model is that photons travel at c only relative to the gravitational field that there in. This isn't some kind of far-out idea. We already know that gravity curves the paths of photons, so another photon-gravity interaction is not some kind of crazy idea. Everything else I said in my posts are logical deductions from that single assumption.

I even provided the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the decreased ticking rate of traveling atomic clocks as evidence to support my theory. It seems that this evidence is good enough for Einstein, but not good enough for me.

I'm really thinking of not posting at all on Sciforums. I mean if my posts are going to be moved to the same section that discusses UFO's and aliens, I'd rather just save my time and effort and not post at all.

5. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
BenTheMan,

If you wanted to know, you should've just asked. Instead you didn't, and quickly moved my thread into Pseudoscience.

Your wrong. It hasn't. The only places where the omnidirectional speed of light was measured to be constant was on stationary locations on the surface of the Earth. The omnidirectional speed of light has NEVER been measured in a device that wasn't stationary in a gravitational field.

7. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Dywyddyr,

Kind of. Using just Newton's equation for gravity I've found that the gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth is almost 2000 times stronger than the gravitational force of the Sun on that same object. Using this number I found that that Sun's gravitational field will only cause the speed of light on the surface of the Earth to change by less than 20m/s. This is much less than the 30 km/s (Earth's orbit) that was expected in the aether-detecting experiments.

Gravity only pulls objects with a uniform gravitational field (standard mass). I believe that photon's have a special gravitational field that allows them to be pulled from one side, and pushed from the other. Maybe they are gravitational dipoles, I don't know.

8. ### StryderKeeper of "good" ideas.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,104
Prosoothus,

You might want to check this:

The animation represents two different wave forms, which could be used to represent say "Light". Both waves are of different sizes, however when they are observed and measured, they are referenced using the same timing over the same distances.

This is represented by being the moving green box in the animation, it's a moving window that is moving at a "Constant", even though both wave forms are of different "Frequency" they are of the same "Constant" speed.

9. ### AcitnoidsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
704
Prosoothus,
It's one thing to state your assumptions with words it is another thing if you can show your work mathematically. Einstien didn't use words to describe the constant nature of light, he used math. He didn't wake up one day and decide that a massive body could alter the direction of a distant light source, he used math. Without math you have nothing. These aren't my rules or the rules of SF, it's just the way it has always been. Talk is cheap. The more you learn about what is known and why the more you will understand your errors. BTW, GPS satellites are not stationary and they use light to find your EXACT position so to say that c has never been measured in a device that wasn't stationary is just flat out incorrect.

Messages:
8,967

Messages:
8,967
12. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,227
And since we know the value of C to several decimal places 20 or 30 m/sec is easily within discernible limits.

And the evidence for this would be...?
What you have is a non-testable self-sustaining speculation.
Any evidence anywhere for gravitational dipoles?

13. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Acitnoids,

You're wrong. With math you can get details, but the idea itself is abstract.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that we lived 2000 years ago, and I told you that two objects with mass are attracted to each other. This is a valid theory. Sure it would be nice to know exactly the strength of the attractive force. And you can get that with the math. But math is not needed to know that two masses attract each other, all you need is the evidence that they do.

Same thing with my idea. I would like to know exactly how multiple gravitational fields moving at different velocities influence a photon that's moving through them, but I'll just be satisfied with the fact of knowing that they do.

GPS satellites do not have a device inside of them that measures the omnidirectional speed of light. The speed of light could be decreased in the satellite, and the only way would know would be that their clock would be ticking a little slower. However, relativists would claim that there clocks are ticking slower due to time dilation, and not because the speed of light inside the clocks have changed.

14. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
See post #27.

15. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
Dywyddyr,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

Lower down that page it gives a table listing the results of the different types of aether-detection experiments done over the years. If you divide the Fringe Shift Measured by the Fringe Shift Expected (which is 30km/s), you'll find that this number is greater than 20m/s (expected change in the speed of light based on my model) divided by 30km/s. In other words, the variance in the speed of light in all of these experiments are larger than 20m/s.

The article does indicate that some recent experiments were done where the variance is much smaller. I'll have to take a closer look at them.

You're right. Pure speculation. I have no evidence that photons are gravitational dipoles, or even that they have a "deformed" gravitational field. I just thought that it was the most probable reason for their assumed behavior.

16. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
BenTheMan,

If you look at that experiment in detail, and you think about what my model predicts, you'll find that according to my model the speed of light measured in that experiment should be very close to c (as it was).

My model states that the speed of light will change for an object that is moving through a gravitational field. In the link you provided, one end of the object is the ground station, and the second part of the object are the satellites. The entire object is moving very very slowly relative to the Earth's gravitational field, so therefore almost no variance in the speed of the light should be, or was, detected.

The way to test whether my model is wrong or right would be to measure the speed of light in an object that is moving at high speeds through a gravitational field.

17. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
I don't know what your model predicts, because all you've made is a bunch of vague statements:

Can you predict, from your model, how much the speed of light should change? How do you know what not much'' means if you don't actually have any numbers to back it up?

Here's a deal: you show me, mathematically, that your model isn't ruled out by the above experiments, and I'll make sure this thread goes back into Physics and Math.

18. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
Because in relativity no rest mass is equivalent to a null trajectory, the path moves along a zero size space-time interval so you get $c^{2}dt^{2} - dx^{2} = 0$ or $\frac{dx}{dt} = c$.

Then you have no right to claim your work can replace relativity since there are phenomena relativity can explain but you can't.

19. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
BenTheMan,

Here is what I posted earlier:

"Using just Newton's equation for gravity I've found that the gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth is almost 2000 times stronger than the gravitational force of the Sun on that same object. Using this number I found that that Sun's gravitational field will only cause the speed of light on the surface of the Earth to change by less than 20m/s. This is much less than the 30 km/s (Earth's orbit) that was expected in the aether-detecting experiments."

From my above statements, I'm sure you can tell how I came up with the numbers that I did. Here is the data:

You have two gravitational fields influence light on the surface of the Earth, the Earth's and the Sun's.

The gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth resulting between the object and the Earth is:

F1=m(object)*m(Earth)*G/d^2(distance from the Earth)

The gravitational force on an object on the surface of the Earth resulting between the object and the Sun is:

F2=m(object)*m(Sun)*G/d^2(distance from the Sun)

Now to find how much stronger the gravitational field between the object and the Earth is relative to the object and the sun is:

F1/F2 = (m(Earth)*d^2(distance from the Sun))/m(Sun)/d^2(distance from the Earth)

If you do the calculations, you'll find that the Earth's gravitational effects on the object are 1655.15 times stronger than the Sun's effect on that same object. So on the surface of the Earth, two forces are influencing light:

1 (the strength of gravitational force of the Sun) moving at 60,000m/s (speed of the Sun's gravitational field relative to the object)

1655 (the strength of the gravitational force of the Earth) moving at 0m/s (speed of the Earth's gravitational field relative to the object)

Hypothetically, if both of these forces were equal in strength, a photon on the surface of the Earth would be traveling at c + 30,000m/s(vector) relative to both the Sun and the Earth. But since the the Earth's effect on the light is 1655 times stronger than the Sun's, the difference in the speed of light in this case would be:

(v1+v2)/2 * 1/1655 = 18.12m/s

In summary, the speed of light measured on the surface of the Earth should be c(E) +- 18.12m/s where c(E) is the speed of light in the Earth's atmosphere.

Let me also point out that your request was a little unfair. You basically asked me to calculate the variance in the speed of light when the light is being influenced by two gravitational fields, at two different strengths, moving at two different speeds relative to each other. It's like requiring a person to mathematically explain the movement of an electron in a lithium atom in order to prove that electrons repel other electrons.

I already showed you in the first experiment that the entire device, which in that case consists of two satellites and a ground station, is actually not moving relative to the Earth's gravitational field. As a result, according to my idea, since there is no movement of the device, the speed of light measured should be c (as it was). According to my model, the speed of light in a device would only change if the device was moving through, and moving relative to, a gravitational field.

As for the other experiment, my model does not cover all the effects of gravity on light. Besides gravity accelerating light to c, I believe that it can also force the rotation of photons causing them to change their paths. The larger distance covered by the photons as a result of a curved path could, in turn, result in slower reactions. I really don't have it all worked out. After all, my theory is not complete. But then again, there are no theories that are.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2009

Messages:
1,597
!!Lol!!

21. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
AlphaNumeric,

With all do respect, this thread is discussing how certain experiments can be explained without time dilation or length contraction. This would imply that relativity might be wrong. Then to state that objects without a rest mass have to travel at c because relativity says so, is inappropriate.

You're right. I was wrong to say that my idea can replace relativity. Let me rephrase it. My model can now explain certain experiments in a simpler and more intuitive way than relativity. Maybe in the future, it will replace some, or all, of relativity.

22. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
Why not?

You're asking me to trade a theory which DOES explain ALL of gravity's effect on light (relativity) for one that DOESN'T explain all of gravity's effects on light?

When I asked you to give me some numbers, you detailed an unrelated calculation. You told me that the measuring device didn't test your idea'' because it wasn't moving in relation to the gravitational field. I'm not sure this matters, because the gravitational field is still changing along the path that the photon takes. In that respect, I don't see the difference.

Either way, you contradict yourself as you back-peddle:

I asked you (after the first quote) to quantify what very close to c'' means, and then you come back and say according to my idea...the speed of light measured should be c''.

I'm done with this conversation. As always, you can have the last word

23. ### ProsoothusRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,973
BenTheMan,

Because I didn't get to it yet. Is that OK with you?

The strength of the gravitational field is changing, but the motion of the gravitational field is not. My model only takes into consideration the motion of the field. The only time the strength of the field needs to be taken into affect is when there are multiple fields moving at different speeds relative to each other.

The satellites and the base station are generally stationary in the Earth's gravitational field so the speed of light that is measured is very close to c. Am I saying that the are not moving at all relative to the gravitational field? No, I'm not. I don't know if the gravitational field of the Earth at the height of the satellites is moving relative to the geosynchronous satellites.

I'm also aware that the Sun's gravitational influence, and the Earth's gravitational influence, on the light changes based on where exactly the light is, at the moment, in its trip to the satellites and back to Earth.

Also, the path and the angle of the light beams will determine their speed as well. If the light is traveling to the satellite in the same direction at which the Earth is orbiting the Sun, the effect would be different than if the light was traveling in the opposite direction of the Earth's orbit.

As you can see, there are a lot of factors which would determine exactly how large the variance in the speed of light is in the experiment. I do not have all this data. That's why I'm saying that the speed of light measured should be c, or very close to c.