Gravities Influence On Light

[Prosoothus]

I know this is meant for Billy, but I thought I'd take a stab at this

1) What benefit is there to considering light to be a gravitational effect? How do you use gravity to calculate its speed or wavelength? Can you actually describe anything quantitative about the real world through this approach?

2) Why is the speed of light in vacuum always the same, whether it's measured by labs on Earth or satellites in space? Why do signals from Earth to space and space to Earth always travel at c? Doesn't seem gravity makes any difference here.

Let's say that the speed of light is pushed by gravitational fields. This would mean that the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the gravitational field that the light is traveling through.

So if you had a device that is stationary on the surface of the Earth, the speed of light would be constant in that device because the device is stationary in the Earth's gravitational field (the Earth's field spins with the Earth).

If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object, would decrease or increase depending on the direction of the light in that object. However, the average speed of light (in all three dimensions) of light in that object would decrease. The decrease in the average speed of light in that object would cause the reactions in that object to slow down since the reactions are dependent on the speed of light.

If my model is correct, it would not only replace relativity, but it would also explain photon propulsion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So if you had a device that is stationary on the surface of the Earth, the speed of light would be constant in that device because the device is stationary in the Earth's gravitational field (the Earth's field spins with the Earth).

Except that

If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object

The Earth IS moving through a gravitational field, that of the Sun for one.

If my model is correct

You're severely misusing the term "model".

but it would also explain photon propulsion.

As opposed to the existing explanation?

 

[BenTheMan]

Let's say that the speed of light is pushed by gravitational fields.

Describe, using equations preferably, why this should be the case.

Or, conversely, you can explain an experiment where this was shown to be the case.

 

[Prosoothus]

Dywyddyr,

The Earth IS moving through a gravitational field, that of the Sun for one.

But on the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is much stronger than the Sun's. So the Sun's field has an effect on light on the surface of the Earth, but very little.

As opposed to the existing explanation?

There is no existing explanation on why light speed particles "prefer" to travel at c.

 

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

Describe, using equations preferably, why this should be the case.
Or, conversely, you can explain an experiment where this was shown to be the case.

The Michelson-Morley device clearly indicated that the speed of light was constant regardless of how the device was rotated. Since the device was actually stationary on the surface of the Earth, and therefore stationary in the Earth's gravitational field, it's pretty easy to conclude that the speed of light in the device could be linked to the Earth's gravitational field.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
But on the surface of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is much stronger than the Sun's. So the Sun's field has an effect on light on the surface of the Earth, but very little.

Except that we can measure to incredible accuracies and STILL nothing shows...

There is no existing explanation on why light speed particles "prefer" to travel at c.

You didn't mention that, you stated photon propulsion.
And your "model" wouldn't explain it either.

 

[Prosoothus]

Dywyddyr,

Except that we can measure to incredible accuracies and STILL nothing shows...

That's not true. These types of experiments have been done over the years and they all showed variances. These variances were considered errors since they are so much smaller than the expected orbit of the Earth around the Sun (which was thought to be the minimum speed of the Earth through the aether).

You didn't mention that, you stated photon propulsion.
And your "model" wouldn't explain it either.

My model implies that photon's have a "deformed" gravitational field that enables them to accelerate in an external gravitational field.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
That's not true. These types of experiments have been done over the years and they all showed variances. These variances were considered errors since they are so much smaller than the expected orbit of the Earth around the Sun (which was thought to be the minimum speed of the Earth through the aether).

Which proves my point: the "variations" don't match anything like that expected from our motion.

My model implies that photon's have a "deformed" gravitational field that enables them to accelerate in an external gravitational field.

Your supposition (model has a precise meaning in physics) still wouldn't account for the invariance of C.

 

[Prosoothus]

Dywyddyr,

Which proves my point: the "variations" don't match anything like that expected from our motion.

True. But if instead of assuming that the Earth is moving through the aether at a high speed, you assume that the combination of the Earth's and Sun's gravitational fields have an effect on the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, then these variations are no longer within the "margin of error".

Your supposition (model has a precise meaning in physics) still wouldn't account for the invariance of C.

My supposition states that the speed of light is not invariant. It changes based on whether the observer is stationary or moving in a gravitational field. The change in the speed of light is exactly why clocks that are moving through a gravitational field ticking slower. So in my supposition, moving clocks do not tick slower because of time dilation, but because the average speed of light has decreased in the clocks (relative to the clocks).

 

[BenTheMan]

it's pretty easy to conclude that the speed of light in the device could be linked to the Earth's gravitational field.

Ahh I see.

 

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

Exactly what is the reason you moved this thread to Pseudoscience???

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore if anytime someone posts an idea, you move it to Pseudoscience.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

There is no existing explanation on why light speed particles "prefer" to travel at c.

If they have no rest mass then they must move at c.

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore if anytime someone posts an idea, you move it to Pseudoscience.

You claim to have a model which can replace relativity. Demonstrate how you can correctly predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the time dilation effects experimentally measured by the GPS system.

If you can't then pseudoscience is precisely where you deserve to be.

 

[BenTheMan]

BenTheMan,

Exactly what is the reason you moved this thread to Pseudoscience???

1.) Gravity doesn't "push" light.

2.)

If an object is moving through a gravitational field, the speed of light, relative to that object, would decrease or increase depending on the direction of the light in that object.

explicitly contradicts measurements made for the past 100 years.

3.)

If my model is correct,

There is no model. You've made some vague statements, and claimed that half of physics for the past 100 years is wrong.

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore if anytime someone posts an idea, you move it to Pseudoscience.

I only move the shitty ideas to pseudoscience.

See ya!

 

[Prosoothus]

AlphaNumeric,

If they have no rest mass then they must move at c.

Why can't a particle with no rest mass just sit there?

You claim to have a model which can replace relativity. Demonstrate how you can correctly predict the precession of the orbit of Mercury and the time dilation effects experimentally measured by the GPS system.

First, precession of Mercury has nothing to do with my model.

Second, I explained why reactions slow down in an object moving in a gravitational field in a previous post.

 

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

1.) Gravity doesn't "push" light.

How do you know?

explicitly contradicts measurements made for the past 100 years.

When was the speed of light measured in an object that was actually moving in a gravitational field in the past 100 years? Please provide the experiments.

There is no model. You've made some vague statements, and claimed that half of physics for the past 100 years is wrong.

You can call it whatever you want. Does it have to be a full-blown peer-reviewed theory to be posted on Sciforums?

I only move the shitty ideas to pseudoscience.

See ya!

No, you only move the theories that you don't "like" to pseudoscience. You're a real scientist!

 

[BenTheMan]

How do you know?

Because General Relativity is the most accurate theory known to man (thanks DH!).

When was the speed of light measured in an object that was actually moving in a gravitational field in the past 100 years? Please provide the experiments.

The fact that c is a constant to all observers is one of the two postulates of special relativity. Thus, all tests that confirm special relativity confirm the two postulates. Your job is to either explain why your theory gives the same conclusions, and why all of the experiments that have already been preformed are not right. It is not my job to explain why you are wrong, it is your job to explain why I am wrong.

Welcome to the wonderful world of science. It's not for everybody.

You can call it whatever you want. Does it have to be a full-blown peer-reviewed theory to be posted on Sciforums?

No, but it has to at least make sense.

No, you only move the theories that you don't "like" to pseudoscience. You're a real scientist!

If by ``don't like'' you mean ``find offensive in the name of Ganesh, Yahweh and Francis Bacon, and all other things holy and good'', then you are correct.

 

[BenTheMan]

I'm not coming to Sciforums anymore

I'm still waiting for this to come true...

 

[Prosoothus]

BenTheMan,

I see you avoided the question. I asked how do you know that gravity doesn't push photons?

The fact that c is a constant to all observers is one of the two postulates of special relativity. Thus, all tests that confirm special relativity confirm the two postulates.

Wrong. So if I say that pink leprechauns make electric and magnetic fields, proving that electric and magnetic fields are real proves that pink leprechauns exist. What kind of logic is that???

No, but it has to at least make sense.

Exactly what part of my idea do you have problems understanding?

 

[Dywyddyr]

True. But if instead of assuming that the Earth is moving through the aether at a high speed, you assume that the combination of the Earth's and Sun's gravitational fields have an effect on the speed of light on the surface of the Earth, then these variations are no longer within the "margin of error".

There is no aether.
These variations are no longer within the margin of error?
So you HAVE done the maths?

My supposition states that the speed of light is not invariant.

Contradicting everything we know...

First, precession of Mercury has nothing to do with my model.

So you missed that as confirmation of E=MC[su]2[/sup]

BenTheMan,
I see you avoided the question. I asked how do you know that gravity doesn't push photons?

Gravity only "pulls".

Wrong. So if I say that pink leprechauns make electric and magnetic fields, proving that electric and magnetic fields are real proves that pink leprechauns exist. What kind of logic is that???

Missed the point haven't you?
There's no evidence or requirement for leprechauns of any colour.

 

[Acitnoids]

Prosoothus,
Rejection is a big part of furthering science. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. Ben moved my idea from the physics forum into pseudoscience but you don't see me whining about it. I would like to think it was moved not so much because it was a 'shitty' idea but because I hadn't provided enough information to draw a conclusion. In my case nobody seemed to care about what I had to say so there was no need to elaborate. Be grateful that you got an explanation for being moved. Be grateful that others even tried to correct your misconceptions. If you came to SF to tell others "how it is" then be prepared to be ridiculed. If you came to SF to learn where your ideas fail then listen up. I'm sorry to break it to you like this but you don't get to decide what the next accepted theory will be. It is people like Ben (only more critical) who get to decide this.