The speed of light

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

The off-topic discussion discussion started and perpetuated by EMField has been moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68609-speed-of-light/

[EMField]

So if light is constant and only relies on delay of absorption and emission, then how does a Black Hole stop light? Light MUST slow so that it does not physically reach escape velocity. Just as the occillation of the atom slows near a gravitational source, i.e. time slows. Yet no gravitational model yet exists for the atom or the photon, so gravity must be an EM event.

[MigL]

I'll answer you here, EMField. I like to deal with accepted physics, not speculation ( mostly ).

 

Why would you think that light has to slow down and stop at the event horizon of a black hole ?

Take a sine wave, representing one of the two polarizations of light, and stretch the time base, as you would in a strong gravitational well ( gravitational time dilation as predicted by GR ). This has the exact same effect as increasing the wavelength and decreasing the frequency, ie. it undergoes red-shift. At the event horizon of a black hole we don't need to assume the photons are stopped in their tracks, we instead consider the time base of the light wave stretched to infinity, such that the wavelength is infinite and the frequency is zero. I assume you know what that means, the photons have no energy left, they have been red shifted into nothingness, after their 'climb' out of the hole's gravitational well. Their energy has been given up to the black hole, but they still travel at c .

 

And no, gravity is not and does not need to be an EM event. The logic you used to arrive at your conclusion is rather arrogant. You assume you know all forces, so if one doesn't fit your pet theories, it must be an effect of one of the others. Are there no unknowns in your world ?

Gravity has a perfectly workable theory in GR. It only fails at certain extremes, otherwise it has been verified to about ten or more decimal places. Most physicist are humble and recognise that these extremes are unknown and will readily admit we need a quantum field theory of gravity.

[EMField]

I'll answer you here, EMField. I like to deal with accepted physics, not speculation ( mostly ).

 

Why would you think that light has to slow down and stop at the event horizon of a black hole ?

Take a sine wave, representing one of the two polarizations of light, and stretch the time base, as you would in a strong gravitational well ( gravitational time dilation as predicted by GR ). This has the exact same effect as increasing the wavelength and decreasing the frequency, ie. it undergoes red-shift. At the event horizon of a black hole we don't need to assume the photons are stopped in their tracks, we instead consider the time base of the light wave stretched to infinity, such that the wavelength is infinite and the frequency is zero. I assume you know what that means, the photons have no energy left, they have been red shifted into nothingness, after their 'climb' out of the hole's gravitational well. Their energy has been given up to the black hole, but they still travel at c .

 

And no, gravity is not and does not need to be an EM event. The logic you used to arrive at your conclusion is rather arrogant. You assume you know all forces, so if one doesn't fit your pet theories, it must be an effect of one of the others. Are there no unknowns in your world ?

Gravity has a perfectly workable theory in GR. It only fails at certain extremes, otherwise it has been verified to about ten or more decimal places. Most physicist are humble and recognise that these extremes are unknown and will readily admit we need a quantum field theory of gravity.

 

Gravity is the biggest unknown in science and you and I both know that, so don't try to play that card. Your only answer for gravity is a curved space-time that is composed of nothing, and this nothing is warped by mass and then tells mass how to move.

 

So, let us suppose space is a space-time composed of 3 dimensions and a 4th of time. That mass curves it and then space-time tells the mass how to move. The rubber sheet is a good analogy. I place a ball on the sheet and the sheet becomes indented. I then place a 2nd ball and it is attracted to the 1st ball and rolls downhill. Why? Why would the 2nd ball roll "downhill" if there was not already a force pulling at it from beneath the sheet? What causes it to begin to move in the first place, if nothing is pulling it downhill? The lack of causality is the biggest problem I have with relativity. Add to this the fact that two balls of the same mass if placed on the sheet would create two equal indentations with a bulge between them, not an even deeper indentation between them as is required for binary pulsar's. Then you have the fact that orbits are along the EM plane of all bodies, i.e. Birkland currents polar, magnetic field perpendicular to them. Currents traveling in the same directions attract, currents traveling in the opposite directions repel. This is why orbits tend to be stable overall. So yes, gravity does exist but it's an EM phenomenon, not a curved space-time. You want effect with no cause. You want a ball to magically begin rolling towards the other ball without any reason to do so, since according to relativity, objects simply follow this curved space time with no reason to begin movement in the first place.

 

And red-shift means little nowadays since laboratory results show plasma electron density causes red-shift. Since 99% of the universe is plasma, I hope you don't mind if I do not take mainstream expansion theories to heart.

 

http://www.sciencedi...030402608000089

 

Especially when Hubble himself maintained his red-shift data fit better with observations if one considered a static universe with red-shift caused by as then undiscovered event. One that has now been discovered and used for several years to increase efficiency in plasma devices.

 

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.

 

So Hubble it turns out was correct after all about red-shift, just not in the way you want it to be.

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edwin_Powell_Hubble.aspx

As a result of his investigations with Tolman, Hubble was inclined, from about 1936, to reject the Doppler-effect interpretation of the red shifts and to regard the galaxies as stationary. He claimed that uniformity of distribution in depth was compatible with this assumption. On the other hand, if the galaxies are receding, uniformity in depth can be reconciled with the observations only if there is also a positive curvature of space, the required radius being about 500 million light-years, which was actually less than the range of the 100-inch reflector for normal galaxies. Theoretical cosmologists, notably G. C. McVittie in the late 1930’s and Otto Heckmann in the early 1940’s, criticized Hubble’s analysis and rejected his conclusions but respected his observational achievements.

 

So you let theoretical scientists with no practical laboratory work or even actual investigations override Hubble's direct evidence that something was not right in wonderland. And now it seems he is vindicated but will go unrecognized as you want to keep theory over observational data.

Edited August 28, 2012 by EMField

[ACG52]

Why would the 2nd ball roll "downhill" if there was not already a force pulling at it from beneath the sheet?

 

Because 'downhill' is simply following the geodesic. It's not 'down', and there's nothing pulling from under the sheet. THERE IS NO UNDER THE SHEET. It's an analogy,not a model.

[EMField]

And if the ball is "AT REST" it begins rolling "downhill" anyway without any force causing it to do so, analogy or not. Magic, pure and simple.

Edited August 28, 2012 by EMField

[ACG52]

The ball, like everything in the universe, moves along the geodesic. The ball is 'at rest' when there is some force preventing the movement along the geodesic, e.g. the ground. Remove the impediment, and the ball moves along the geodesic.

 

No magic.

 

Science.

 

try some.

 

If you're going to try to contradict General Relativity, you should at least know a little about what you're arguing against.

[EMField]

The ball, like everything in the universe, moves along the geodesic. The ball is 'at rest' when there is some force preventing the movement along the geodesic, e.g. the ground. Remove the impediment, and the ball moves along the geodesic.

 

No magic.

 

Science.

 

try some.

 

If you're going to try to contradict General Relativity, you should at least know a little about what you're arguing against.

 

Two objects placed "at rest", i.e. stationary in space, begin to move towards one another EVERY time, yet you insist no force is pulling them towards one another. Why do they begin to move if no pre-existing force is causing them to follow this curvature? Maybe you should learn a little of what you are arguing about. I am arguing against magic, you for. Your curved space composed of nothing gives rise to no reason for the two stationary objects to begin moving towards one another in the first place, since no force is causing it. Learn science before you start repeating what you were taught by rote.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Perhaps someone can explain how this discussion of gravity is on-topic for this thread, and how claims of "magic" is not contrary to accepted science. Because I know I've warned against doing this more than once, and there are consequences for not following the rules.

[MigL]

The rubber sheet is an analogy and it can be used to represent several things. The one we are interested in EMField, is gravitational potential.

 

Do you still need to be spoonfed what that implies for the motion of the masses causing the indentations or potential wells ???

 

In your rush to put foreward your pet theories of a plasma dominated universe, you display an amazing lack of insight into the simplest gravitational processes.

[EMField]

I just want one answer, what causes two objects in space to approach one another? And are you sure you want to talk about potentials??

 

http://en.wikipedia....ional_potential

In classical mechanics, the gravitational potential at a location is equal to the work (energy transferred) per unit mass that is done by the force of gravity to move an object to a fixed reference location. It is analogous to the electric potential with mass playing the role of charge.

 

So you replaced the electrical formula of charge with mass, as charge says it all:

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html

 

Wait, I thought there was no external force under the sheet. I thought it was just curved nothing?

http://en.wikipedia....otential_energy

Potential energy is associated with a set of forces that act on a body in a way that depends only on the body's position in space.

 

E=mc^2, learn it.

http://en.wikipedia....e_%28physics%29

Charge is a quantity which is present in every body (due to mass and mass contains atoms having electrons and protons) and which shows some electrical characteristics.

 

Please show me your theory on atomic gravity and we will get you the Nobel Prize in no time.

 

As for plasma you have been ignoring it since you found it, and you sure seem sure it aint plasma when for every 100 experts you get 100 different answers, because you haven't studied it until now. Watch the video and learn a bit.

http://www.nasa.gov/...launchnews.html

So much for the old rules indeed, quite prophetic.

Edited September 5, 2012 by EMField

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OK, admonitions to not go off-topic have been ignored, so we'll try closing the thread