Gravity (Split from The speed of gravity = the speed of light. Does that mean gravity and light are the same thing?)

[J.Merrill]

I'm going to try and be as respectful and informative as possible. First things first, light travels no matter where it is unless it is completely absorbed, or under the affects of a black hole, it will remain traveling. How do you think we see the sun  and other stars like it in space? If light doesn't exist in space then we would see total darkness, as this is the absence of light.

Light and Gravity the same thing?

No not even close, as a mater of fact gravity doesn't move. And its not a force so many people think it is, and its much more complex than you might think. I suggest you read Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Thermodynamics of Moving Bodies, and Time Dilation. All of this has a key role in Gravity. (Not explained here).

Light Behaves like a wave and a particle it's rather remarkable! When being observed they behave more like particles rather than waves, I suggest you watch the double slit experiment to fully grasp this. It's almost like the photons are aware they are being observed and they behave different accordingly, its called the Duality Problem. I highly suggest as stated before that you watch these or read about it.

Edited June 18, 2022 by J.Merrill

[swansont]

10 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

as a mater of fact gravity doesn't move

It’s changes in gravity that one would discuss. Gravitational waves propagate at c, as MigL notes above.

[J.Merrill]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s changes in gravity that one would discuss. Gravitational waves propagate at c, as MigL notes above.

Gravity affects things with mass.

Gravity does not affect light, if it did the speed would change. The reason for this unaffected change in speed is light is made of photons, one of the only particles with out mass. Sometimes the word mass is thought of as weight, where this is partially true its not as simple as one would suggest. The mass of an object is measured by its resistance to gravity. When you pick up a heavy or light object it is resisting the Earths Gravity. 

But there is more to mass than just resistance to gravity, especially on the scale of the smallest observable pieces of matter. So in physics the definition of mass gets a little more complicated. Most fundamental matter Particles such as electrons , muons and quarks, have mass. They get their mass from their resistance to a field that permeates the Universe. Its call the Higgs Field. When referring to the mass of Protons and Neutrons, they are made up of Quarks and their mass is derived from the pull of a force that holds the Quarks together.

Photons and gluons , the two forces carrying particles are fundamental so they don't Push or pull on anything. They are unaffected by Higgs field, and so we can indefinitely presume they are massless particles.

Massless particles are the form of pure energy and it is sufficient for a particle to have this energy to have a meaning full sense of existence - "Flip Tanedo "

 

So how exactly does light bend with Spacetime? If gravity isn't affecting the photons.

Try to not imagine that light itself is actually being bent, but the space around it and the path its taking is bending, its only following the path accordingly.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by J.Merrill

[swansont]

Just now, J.Merrill said:

Gravity does not affect light, if it did the speed would change.

Gravity bends light.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.Merrill said:

Gravity does not affect light, if it did the speed would change

Lol. Experiments confirm you’re wrong. 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, J.Merrill said:

Massless particles are the form of pure energy and it is sufficient for a particle to have this energy to have a meaning full sense of existence - "Flip Tanedo "

No such thing as pure energy. Photons - massless- have energy, and also linear and angular momentum. All three are properties, not substances.

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Gravity bends light.

No gravity bends the path at which light is taking 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Lol. Experiments confirm you’re wrong. 

We have a measurable confirmed experiment that shows light waves bent photons Bent? I don't think so. As a matter of fact Einstein predicted a star would be visible during an clips. This star was behind the sun and would not have been visible other wise if gravity wasn't an effect of warped space time. Light travels though space in a straight line, the line at which light is traveling is bent, but not light its self.

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by J.Merrill

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

No gravity bends the path at which light is taking 

Which affects the path of the light.

[J.Merrill]

Yes but the a path something can take does not affect it in the sense you might imagine.  For example Imagine there are two people Person A, and B and a wall 5ft wide blocking the view of each other, A has a ball, this ball is our photon. Now Lets throw our photon at the wall, does the other person see us? The answer is no, But lets throw a curve ball, the ball starts out straight but curves the path, not the ball. So our photon hits the target behind the wall in this case Person  B. And the source of that photon Is Person A which is now briefly seen even though there is an obvious structure in the direct line of sight.

I know it takes more than one photon for the human eye to detect light but this is just an example.

 

I hope I'm not coming off rude this is not my intentions, I only want learn and shed insight on things that may be understood differently. After all to understand things we must have intuition and question things around us. Even if what we think we know works. Like Newtons Law of Gravity was questioned and corrected by Albert Einstein.

Edited June 18, 2022 by J.Merrill

[Markus Hanke]

11 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Photons and gluons , the two forces carrying particles are fundamental so they don't Push or pull on anything.

Massless particles still carry momentum - you can exert a measureable force on an object simply by exposing it to light in the right way. So in that sense photons definitely do “push”. The same holds true for gluons, though due to the nature of QCD the situation here is more complicated.

11 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

If gravity isn't affecting the photons.

While it is true that geodesics don’t depend on the nature of the free-falling object (they depend only on the geometry of spacetime, plus boundary conditions), it is highly misleading to say that “gravity doesn’t affect photons”. After all, if you send a photon through any kind of gravitational gradient, it will experience frequency shift, ie it will either red- or blue-shift. 

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

if you send a photon through any kind of gravitational gradient, it will experience frequency shift, ie it will either red- or blue-shift.  

This is relative only to the observer though? 
Red shift and blue shift are how we justify the conclusion that the universe is expanding. As things that seem to be a moving further away from us have red shift in light frequencies. And blue shift for celestial bodies moving closer. Light traveling out of a gradient of gravity would shift red from an observer’s on earth but but not for an observer’s observing in space far away from earth.

Example: 
Suppose there are two people for this experiment. Person A and Person B.

Person A shoots a few thousand partials of light 90° In to space at Person B. who is just outside of earths “gravitational  gradient”. Would person B experience a red shift in light waves or blue? Gravity as I understand it would only affect the observers perspective. So is gravity still having an effect on light as a constant or is it affecting the observer’s perception only?This goes hand and hand with Time Dialation & Relativity.

Please excuse any typos it’s 5am here and I’m extremely tired.

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Gravity affects things with mass.

Gravity does not affect light, if it did the speed would change. The reason for this unaffected change in speed is light is made of photons, one of the only particles with out mass. Sometimes the word mass is thought of as weight, where this is partially true its not as simple as one would suggest. The mass of an object is measured by its resistance to gravity. When you pick up a heavy or light object it is resisting the Earths Gravity. 

But there is more to mass than just resistance to gravity, especially on the scale of the smallest observable pieces of matter. So in physics the definition of mass gets a little more complicated. Most fundamental matter Particles such as electrons , muons and quarks, have mass. They get their mass from their resistance to a field that permeates the Universe. Its call the Higgs Field. When referring to the mass of Protons and Neutrons, they are made up of Quarks and their mass is derived from the pull of a force that holds the Quarks together.

Photons and gluons , the two forces carrying particles are fundamental so they don't Push or pull on anything. They are unaffected by Higgs field, and so we can indefinitely presume they are massless particles.

Massless particles are the form of pure energy and it is sufficient for a particle to have this energy to have a meaning full sense of existence - "Flip Tanedo "

 

So how exactly does light bend with Spacetime? If gravity isn't affecting the photons.

Try to not imagine that light itself is actually being bent, but the space around it and the path its taking is bending, its only following the path accordingly.

 

 

 

It seems hard to believe a Physics prof like Flip Tanedo would say what you quote him as saying. “Pure energy” is Star Teek, not physics and the rest is bad English. Where did you get this from and what was the context?

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Person A shoots a few thousand partials of light 90° In to space at Person B. who is just outside of earths “gravitational  gradient”. Would person B experience a red shift in light waves or blue?

Light leaving the earth is very slightly red shifted due to the gravity of earth.

[J.Merrill]

44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Light leaving the earth is very slightly red shifted due to the gravity of earth.

Then that is to say light leaving a stars gravity is red shifted too, even if it’s moving closer to us by nature of the universe. And this we know is false.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

Then that is to say light leaving a stars gravity is red shifted too, even if it’s moving closer to us by nature of the universe. And this we know is false.

Lol. Only if we ignore what we’ve known for 180 years. You’re hysterical in your wrongness

[J.Merrill]

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

It seems hard to believe a Physics prof like Flip Tanedo would say what you quote him as saying. “Pure energy” is Star Teek, not physics and the rest is bad English. Where did you get this from and what was the context?

Pure energy is any Field energy like potential energy kinetic energy like a fast moving particle but no mass energy of stable or nearly stable massive particles which would require a process to turn into work pure energy. 
 

What is pure energy because it is The simplest form of electromagnetic waves. This makes it true that light is pure energy. And if Light is made of photons, then photons are indeed pure energy. 
 

It’s not hard to believe anyone would quote the exact context that I stated. If you try to understand what they actually meant.

Edited June 19, 2022 by J.Merrill

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Lol. Only if we ignore what we’ve known for 180 years. You’re hysterical in your wrongness

We have not had the technology to fully understand what we have confirmed in the last 3 decades. For 180 years sorry but this was a foolish statement in my opinion.

On another note, we have been able to observer and confirm things moving away from the earth in our universe shift more towards red light. And things moving towards us on earth in our universe are blue. I'm not sure how I'm Hysterically wrong for using facts made by observations from some of the most well established and gifted minds of the  world. If I can use any amount of Proprietary  Knowledge to make a point that does not make me wrong.

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's right. 

In your imagination, without proper evidence, it can be anything you like. Exactly like Jesus.

I would have to agree here, by a biblical definition of GOD. Light would be Omnipresent. I can turn lights on and off in my house all day long. Does this mean I have turned on and off GOD? No pun intended. 

Edited June 19, 2022 by J.Merrill

[mistermack]

38 minutes ago, J.Merrill said:

I would have to agree here, by a biblical definition of GOD. Light would be Omnipresent. I can turn lights on and off in my house all day long. Does this mean I have turned on and off GOD? No pun intended. 

And of course, gravity is more intense in some places than others, and might be zero in some places. That's not how they portray god either. 

The suggestion that gravity and light are the same, because they both travel at the same speed, is like saying that a tree and a metal box are the same, because they float down a river at the same speed. Their speed is a property of the river, and the speed of light and gravity is a property of spacetime.  

[J.Merrill]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

And of course, gravity is more intense in some places than others, and might be zero in some places. That's not how they portray god either. 

The suggestion that gravity and light are the same, because they both travel at the same speed, is like saying that a tree and a metal box are the same, because they float down a river at the same speed. Their speed is a property of the river, and the speed of light and gravity is a property of spacetime.  

Yes I agree.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

Then that is to say light leaving a stars gravity is red shifted too,

That is correct.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

even if it’s moving closer to us by nature of the universe.

The light leaving the gravity well of a star is red shifted.  If the star is moving towards us then that red shifted light will be blue shifted.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

And this we know is false.

No, it is not false.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

I would have to agree here, by a biblical definition of GOD. Light would be Omnipresent.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  According to the bible light was not omnipresent, but since we are in the physics section I have no idea why this would come up in the discussion.

1 hour ago, J.Merrill said:

What is pure energy because it is The simplest form of electromagnetic waves. This makes it true that light is pure energy. And if Light is made of photons, then photons are indeed pure energy.

This is incorrect.  If photons were pure energy (whatever that could be) then they would have no other properties, such as spin, frequency and momentum.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, J.Merrill said:

Pure energy is any Field energy like potential energy kinetic energy like a fast moving particle but no mass energy of stable or nearly stable massive particles which would require a process to turn into work pure energy. 
 

What is pure energy because it is The simplest form of electromagnetic waves. This makes it true that light is pure energy. And if Light is made of photons, then photons are indeed pure energy. 
 

It’s not hard to believe anyone would quote the exact context that I stated. If you try to understand what they actually meant.

No physicist would ever say an entity was pure energy. It’s a stupid thing to say, like saying something is pure electric charge or pure mass, or pure momentum. I guarantee this person you are claiming to quote said no such thing. Energy is not “stuff”. You can’t have a bottle of energy. You can a bottle of stuff that HAS energy of course, but that is different. 

It’s much more likely a physicist would say light is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which has various properties, including frequency speed and wavelength, momentum, spin and energy.

[NTuft]

On 6/18/2022 at 10:27 AM, J.Merrill said:

Massless particles are the form of pure energy and it is sufficient for a particle to have this energy to have a meaning full sense of existence - "Flip Tanedo "

@exchemist,
I searched, and I think this line is the only quote from F. Tanedo, not the preceding writing.

 

To see what has now piggybacked onto this Jalopy...

We have [G]=L^3/MT^2 and [c]=L/T here? That'd seem important. I am an astrophysics rube.

Are our red/blue shifts spectroscopy measures? Vibrational spectral data? Is it being data processed or transformed?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

No physicist would ever say an entity was pure energy. It’s a stupid thing to say, like saying something is pure electric charge or pure mass, or pure momentum. I guarantee this person you are claiming to quote said no such thing.

Unfortunately there are few things so outlandish that you can’t find a credentialed person so say/support it. (there are those with physics PhDs who question relativity, for example, and same for biology and evolution) 

At best it’s a sloppy description that caters to the lay crowd. But it’s wrong and has no place in a discussion striving to have some rigor.

14 minutes ago, NTuft said:

To see what has now piggybacked onto this Jalopy...

We have [G]=L^3/MT^2 and [c]=L/T here? That'd seem important. I am an astrophysics rube.

Are our red/blue shifts spectroscopy measures? Vibrational spectral data? Is it being data processed or transformed?

We frown on such piggybacking. If your question is not directed at/replying to the OP, it should be asked in a new thread.

[NTuft]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

It’s much more likely a physicist would say light is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which has various properties, including frequency speed and wavelength, momentum, spin and energy.

If it has no mass, must we say it is pure kinesis instead? Humor my simplicity, please: if it is energetic, and has no mass, by what equations or ideas did it acquire momentum?

[J.Merrill]

3 hours ago, NTuft said:

@exchemist,
I searched, and I think this line is the only quote from F. Tanedo, not the preceding writing.

Massless particle are purely energy. "It's sufficient for a particle to have energy to have meaningful sense of existence" Says Flip Tanedo, is an assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside.

Word for word, I wish I had a way to Definitively credit this with proof.