What effect does time dilation have on light?

[swansont]

53 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

But I am asking Lorentz this time, not you

For facts, it shouldn’t matter who you ask. You can read the Shapiro delay papers yourself, and the references given for the photon mass issue, and confirm the answers. Asking someone else can’t possibly change this. It’s also why many of us tend to give citations in responses. Easy corroboration.

 

[MigL]

 

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Overall, we should say that what we see in the sky might be totally different to what is actually going on out there.

Absolutely !
Stars, planets and galaxies are 'painted' on the celestial orb surrounding the Earth.

Except there's no observational evidence for that, either !

[Lorentz Jr]

1 hour ago, Lorentz Jr said:

shouldn´t this effect also be responsible for the observed red shifting?

No. The frequency of the light speeds up again once the light is out of the gravity well.

Actually, I think the light must have the same frequency in the coordinate frame along the whole path, just as a matter of boundary conditions. It would seem faster to time-dilated observers in the gravity well, and that should also apply to their perception of the light (that its frequency is constant) before and after it's in the gravity well, for the same reasons. 🤔

Edited December 14, 2022 by Lorentz Jr

[MigL]

The speed of light measured in any inertial frame is c .
What happens is that a frequency/wavelength shift is noted, such that if you are an observer situated in a gravity well, The light falling in to the observer will be 'blue shifted' to higher frequency/shorter wavelength.
( and light climbing out of a gravity well is 'red shifted' )
If situated too close to a black hole, other effects will become apparent that let you know you are no longer in an inertial frame.

[tmdarkmatter]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

and light climbing out of a gravity well is 'red shifted

Can you give me any citations where this red shift of light coming from the center of our milky way is mentioned? So far, I can only read that galaxies moving away are being responsible for any type of red shifting (Hubble constant). The red shifting related to light moving into and out of wells is completely ignored. It is like scientists are only interested in justifying the big bang theory, so whenever you want to be part of the community, the first thing you have to do is to bow your head and say "yes, there was a big bang and I commit myself to only believe in the big bang" without any type of questioning.

And it is also funny, because even the sunlight should be more red shifted in the evening than in the morning, if the Doppler effect according to the Hubble constant is true. Also stars behind us while travelling around the center of the milky way and even other galaxies that are behind use while moving should be red shifted. But all this is not mentioned.

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

The red shifting related to light moving into and out of wells is completely ignored.

That’s because it is irrelevant, since the effect coming from metric expansion is many orders of magnitude greater than any net effect from gravity wells.

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

And it is also funny, because even the sunlight should be more red shifted in the evening than in the morning, if the Doppler effect according to the Hubble constant is true.

Metric expansion does not happen within gravitationally bound systems on very small scales such as the distance Earth <> Sun.

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Also stars behind us while travelling around the center of the milky way and even other galaxies that are behind use while moving should be red shifted. But all this is not mentioned.

It’s not mentioned because the relative velocity between us and those bodies is small, so the amount of Doppler redshift is minuscule. It certainly does not contribute in any way to cosmological redshifts.

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

so whenever you want to be part of the community, the first thing you have to do is to bow your head and say "yes, there was a big bang and I commit myself to only believe in the big bang" without any type of questioning.

The very first thing you have to do is actually understand current physics - you need to know exactly where we stand at the moment, both so far as large scale physics is concerned (GR, cosmology), as well as high-energy physics (quantum field theory, Standard Model). If you just reject the current paradigm without knowing exactly what it is you are arguing against, then no one is going to ever take you seriously.

And herein lies the issue - the three biggest problems with what you are posting here are that

1. The idea of a massive photon is entirely incompatible with the Standard Model as we know it, and

2. You haven’t demonstrated that photons having rest mass is a concept that is actually able to replicate the phenomenology of dark matter, and

3. There are serious gaps in your understanding of current models

You haven’t addressed point (1) at all, even though it has been pointed out to you. For point (2) you have offered only speculations that don’t even begin to address how massive photons are a viable explanation for dark matter. As for point (3), it’s kind of obvious that you really don’t know much about the basic models underlying current cosmology - for example your comment that, because light is deflected, it must have mass; or that mass is the source of spacetime curvature (both of these are inaccurate).

So no, you don’t have to accept the Lambda-CDM model - but you are expected to thoroughly understand it in all its facets, before anyone will take you seriously. I see little evidence of that, to be honest (not intended as ad hominem, but simply a statement of fact based on your posts here).

You also appear to forget that massive photons as explanation for dark matter is an old idea (“heavy light”), that has already been considered in detail by a number of physicists. But once you put some actual maths around this, it becomes obvious very quickly that it simply doesn’t work; even a photon with rest mass doesn’t have the right kind of properties to accurately account for the observed effects of dark matter. This general-reader type of article might be of interest:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/heavy-light-dark-matter/

Hence, I maintain what I said earlier - interesting as a speculation, but a complete non-starter as a serious DM model.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[tmdarkmatter]

37 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

It’s not mentioned because the relative velocity between us and those bodies is small, so the amount of Doppler redshift is minuscule. It certainly does not contribute in any way to cosmological redshifts.

Please compare the speed of the solar system around the center of the milky way with the speed of the galaxies moving away from us according to the Hubble constant and you will see that this speed is not totally negligible. But nobody is informing about this "minuscule" redshift, maybe because they just do not detect it. Not detecting it would refute the idea of the speed of galaxies to be responsible for the red shifting, ruining also the theory of big bang.

39 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

There are serious gaps in your understanding of current models

If I understand the current models or not does not change the universe and does not make my ideas more or less valid.

40 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

2. You haven’t demonstrated that photons having rest mass is a concept that is actually able to replicate the phenomenology of dark matter, and

I presented a calculation in my first topic using "standard galaxies" showing that, in a sphere of a radius of 25 million light years (half the way to the next group of galaxies) surrounding us, the total mass of light, if our sun is losing 4 millions tons of light mass per second, should be about 11,5 times the mass of the milky way. But this amount should increase considerably considering all the anomalies I mentioned in the same topic (light not emitted by stars, light being bended, light bumping against other objects, background radiation, objects with big masses holding back light etc.)

Anyway, I do not want to "offend" you in any way or try to obligate you to "believe" in any of my ideas. I am only making suggestions. Concerning the article you send me it is very interesting, but I am wondering how the author measured the "light mass" coming from all light emitting sources of this universe arriving at each point of this universe in order to be able to definitely refuse the idea. I can see that when scientists calculate the mass of light of the solar system, they only take into account the sun (10 times further away from the sun than pluto it is only a dot in the sky), and if its the milky way, they only consider the light emitted by this galaxy. Also, they do not consider the space surrounding the milky way which is also filled with light mass and also has an effect on the milky way.

[Ghideon]

50 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If I understand the current models or not does not change the universe and does not make my ideas more or less valid.

But understanding of current models may help you understand how and why your ideas are invalid.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Anyway, I do not want to "offend" you in any way or try to obligate you to "believe" in any of my ideas. I am only making suggestions. Concerning the article you send me it is very interesting, but I am wondering how the author measured the "light mass" coming from all light emitting sources of this universe arriving at each point of this universe in order to be able to definitely refuse the idea. I can see that when scientists calculate the mass of light of the solar system, they only take into account the sun (10 times further away from the sun than pluto it is only a dot in the sky), and if its the milky way, they only consider the light emitted by this galaxy. Also, they do not consider the space surrounding the milky way which is also filled with light mass and also has an effect on the milky way.

!

Moderator Note

But this isn't true, is it? You aren't making suggestions, you're making assertions, and those are being challenged with observations and known science. And you keep using arguments that have been shown to be false, from threads that were closed because your assertions were shown to be false. I'm not sure why you think any meaningful argument can be based on a false foundation; would you continue to build the house if you knew the concrete in the foundation was rotten? Most ideas in science are wrong, and we use specific methodology to make sure we find the bad parts before investing more in the idea. You seem to be asking people to continue to invest time and effort discussing something they know won't work. THAT is why you're getting so much pushback.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

When you discussed this earlier you were told to not to bring it up again without a mathematical treatment. IOW, you need to quantify the effects under discussion, and that is still lacking. Furthermore, sneaking the discussion in under the guise of another question violates our rule on bad faith discussion.