[email protected]
Musings -- by Curt Weinstein
1. The Downshift (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)
I am talking about the redshift that light “seems” to experience as they move away from us. OK, “as they move away from us” is equivalent to “as we move away from them.” Special Relativity doesn’t differentiate between two items in relative constant velocity. It moves to me; I move to it – the same physics, either way.
Dopplerwise, as they move away from us, we see a redshift of the emitted light. But is this the real reason for the redshift? Could be; I don’t know. Let me give another reason for the redshift.
Now, I can think of two reasons. One is not very likely, and I will present that one first. Maybe there is a gas bubble surrounding us. If the gas is moving away from us, the light would be “captured” by the gas (under the influence of the gas) and redshifted. Sort of like, the star moving away from us. In this case, I have moved the effect from the star to some presumed intraspace gas. It was just a thought.
This is the other reason for a redshift that has nothing to do with the relative motion of the stars to the earth. Wait, the Earth is the center of the Universe? The redshift looks the same no matter which way we look into the sky? Maybe you will like this. As light climbs up and away from a star (read “up and away from a large source of gravity”) it is redshifted. Gravity does that. You don’t need relative motion (of the Earth to the Star). The further away a star is the more the light has moved out of the star’s gravitational influence, the more the redshifted. Earth is a tiny gravity in relationship to the large gravities of the visible stars. So the Earth’s blueshift (the blueshift due to light falling to Earth) will not undue completely the Star’s massive redshift (due to rising from the star).
OK, that messes up the redshift means distance from the Earth, however. Redshift means a combination of largeness and distance – because as light climbs out of the gravity well it is continually shifted red. So if the star is large, the redshift is more. So if the light has been climbing out for a long time, the redshift is more. If the star is large, the redshift is more.
This concept messes up the redder (the greater the red shirt) the star the more distant the star. It could be the redder the star the larger the star. (Or both!)
2. Gravity vs. Refraction
Some old site of mine:
https://sites.google.com/site/einsteinweinstein/ which has:
I had been worrying about refraction vs. gravitational attraction of light past a star. The case for refraction is easy; the star puts out tons of gas into the region next to it. It is a very refractive region to me. Then I wondered if refraction were not just gravity in disguise. It doesn’t seem to be.
It doesn’t seem to be. One thing is not right. Refraction bends blue light more than red, and yet the star doesn’t look color separated.
Of course, then I wondered if gravity would pull deferentially on one color more or another. I am reminded, however, of the attraction of mass to the Earth. The rate of fall is the same for heavy (say blue) objects and for not heavy (say red) objects. There is a constant force per unit of mass, which might very well translate into a constant force per unit of “energy.” If so, can we differentiate between refraction and gravity?
Refraction would bend blue light more than red light, while gravity would bend any energy-mass at the same rate. Wait – would gravity bend blue light and red light at the same rate? The linear speed of red or blue light is the same (as blue or red light). The gravitational force on blue light would be greater presumably; but would it take more force to bend the blue light (than red)? I was absent when we discussed this in class. OK, I am confused.
Which makes me think – what’s refraction? It seems a very wavelike property. But, as you may know, I think a wave is just a set of particles (interacting in a wavelike way). Therefore, I am yet guessing that the visually apparent change in the position of starlight (that passes near-by a closer star) is due to gravity. Either that or I am looking through an achromatic refractive lens. (I don’t think so – just a joke.)
The other problem of conception is wave vs. particle. As far as I know, a wave is just a set of particles that are under the same influence (or a similar influence). Besides, De Broglie had said that particles show a wavelike behavior. The wave nature is more obvious in smaller masses (momentums). Therefore, when I call light a wave I am probably referring to more than one photon. Do two photons make a wave? Anyway this is not the way a photon is pictured – usually, the photon is described as wavelike with respect to its properties. I am not sure, however, that the electromagnetic wavering (if it does) has anything to do with the particle’s wavelike properties. The photon acts as a wave because it is small and it is moving, as per de Broglie.
3. … Professor Dr. Albert Einstein is famous for many insights into physics, despite the fact that Dr. Einstein, himself, had said that he made many mistakes. You are probably not familiar with this folly by the master.
Dr. Einstein considered three pillars of physics:
(1) time is independent of motion,
(2) distance is independent of speed, and
(3) the speed of light in a vacuum is c.
I am not going to explain them, but the three are not compatible. In response to strong experimental results, he rejected the first two postulates and kept the third. Thus, Dr. Einstein created Special Relativity. In Special Relativity, light travels at c relative to whatever measures it.
If we take another approach, we get a different answer. Let us take the first two postulates as true, and the third as false. I will briefly explain why later. We get Newtonian physics with a twist. The twist is that light travels at c in its local gravitational field.
Light in one field doesn’t “know” about light in another field. That is what Professor Einstein missed.
What about all those experimental results that show that light travels at c relative to anything? The outer space conclusion may not take into account, for instance, stellar gases, which may affect the speed of light. After all, light in (say) glass travels at a constant speed, presumably due to the glass – and glass or gas, what’s the difference? The inner space conclusion (that is, conclusions from experiments done on the surface of the Earth) may be explained by the “aether.” Hey, pay attention! As Professor Beckmann has said, “Sound in air is like light in gravity.” Gravity is the aether. Thus, just as sound in air is a constant in all directions (no wind, etc.), light in gravity is a constant in all directions. Looking back to outer space, perhaps the differential gravitys of dual stars merge, resulting in a constant speed of light for both stars as they approach Earth.
Light travels at c in its local gravitational field
Musings -- by Curt Weinstein
1. The Downshift (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)
I am talking about the redshift that light “seems” to experience as they move away from us. OK, “as they move away from us” is equivalent to “as we move away from them.” Special Relativity doesn’t differentiate between two items in relative constant velocity. It moves to me; I move to it – the same physics, either way.
Dopplerwise, as they move away from us, we see a redshift of the emitted light. But is this the real reason for the redshift? Could be; I don’t know. Let me give another reason for the redshift.
Now, I can think of two reasons. One is not very likely, and I will present that one first. Maybe there is a gas bubble surrounding us. If the gas is moving away from us, the light would be “captured” by the gas (under the influence of the gas) and redshifted. Sort of like, the star moving away from us. In this case, I have moved the effect from the star to some presumed intraspace gas. It was just a thought.
This is the other reason for a redshift that has nothing to do with the relative motion of the stars to the earth. Wait, the Earth is the center of the Universe? The redshift looks the same no matter which way we look into the sky? Maybe you will like this. As light climbs up and away from a star (read “up and away from a large source of gravity”) it is redshifted. Gravity does that. You don’t need relative motion (of the Earth to the Star). The further away a star is the more the light has moved out of the star’s gravitational influence, the more the redshifted. Earth is a tiny gravity in relationship to the large gravities of the visible stars. So the Earth’s blueshift (the blueshift due to light falling to Earth) will not undue completely the Star’s massive redshift (due to rising from the star).
OK, that messes up the redshift means distance from the Earth, however. Redshift means a combination of largeness and distance – because as light climbs out of the gravity well it is continually shifted red. So if the star is large, the redshift is more. So if the light has been climbing out for a long time, the redshift is more. If the star is large, the redshift is more.
This concept messes up the redder (the greater the red shirt) the star the more distant the star. It could be the redder the star the larger the star. (Or both!)
2. Gravity vs. Refraction
Some old site of mine:
https://sites.google.com/site/einsteinweinstein/ which has:
- I would like light to be attracted by gravity, as in Einstein's star. However, a star is but a lens and a lens curves light. So I wouldn't be terribly upset to find out that light isn't attracted by gravity -- but how does one explain the curvature of light in a lens? I like gravitational explanations -- even for the wave explanation of light.
I had been worrying about refraction vs. gravitational attraction of light past a star. The case for refraction is easy; the star puts out tons of gas into the region next to it. It is a very refractive region to me. Then I wondered if refraction were not just gravity in disguise. It doesn’t seem to be.
It doesn’t seem to be. One thing is not right. Refraction bends blue light more than red, and yet the star doesn’t look color separated.
Of course, then I wondered if gravity would pull deferentially on one color more or another. I am reminded, however, of the attraction of mass to the Earth. The rate of fall is the same for heavy (say blue) objects and for not heavy (say red) objects. There is a constant force per unit of mass, which might very well translate into a constant force per unit of “energy.” If so, can we differentiate between refraction and gravity?
Refraction would bend blue light more than red light, while gravity would bend any energy-mass at the same rate. Wait – would gravity bend blue light and red light at the same rate? The linear speed of red or blue light is the same (as blue or red light). The gravitational force on blue light would be greater presumably; but would it take more force to bend the blue light (than red)? I was absent when we discussed this in class. OK, I am confused.
Which makes me think – what’s refraction? It seems a very wavelike property. But, as you may know, I think a wave is just a set of particles (interacting in a wavelike way). Therefore, I am yet guessing that the visually apparent change in the position of starlight (that passes near-by a closer star) is due to gravity. Either that or I am looking through an achromatic refractive lens. (I don’t think so – just a joke.)
The other problem of conception is wave vs. particle. As far as I know, a wave is just a set of particles that are under the same influence (or a similar influence). Besides, De Broglie had said that particles show a wavelike behavior. The wave nature is more obvious in smaller masses (momentums). Therefore, when I call light a wave I am probably referring to more than one photon. Do two photons make a wave? Anyway this is not the way a photon is pictured – usually, the photon is described as wavelike with respect to its properties. I am not sure, however, that the electromagnetic wavering (if it does) has anything to do with the particle’s wavelike properties. The photon acts as a wave because it is small and it is moving, as per de Broglie.
3. … Professor Dr. Albert Einstein is famous for many insights into physics, despite the fact that Dr. Einstein, himself, had said that he made many mistakes. You are probably not familiar with this folly by the master.
Dr. Einstein considered three pillars of physics:
(1) time is independent of motion,
(2) distance is independent of speed, and
(3) the speed of light in a vacuum is c.
I am not going to explain them, but the three are not compatible. In response to strong experimental results, he rejected the first two postulates and kept the third. Thus, Dr. Einstein created Special Relativity. In Special Relativity, light travels at c relative to whatever measures it.
If we take another approach, we get a different answer. Let us take the first two postulates as true, and the third as false. I will briefly explain why later. We get Newtonian physics with a twist. The twist is that light travels at c in its local gravitational field.
Light in one field doesn’t “know” about light in another field. That is what Professor Einstein missed.
What about all those experimental results that show that light travels at c relative to anything? The outer space conclusion may not take into account, for instance, stellar gases, which may affect the speed of light. After all, light in (say) glass travels at a constant speed, presumably due to the glass – and glass or gas, what’s the difference? The inner space conclusion (that is, conclusions from experiments done on the surface of the Earth) may be explained by the “aether.” Hey, pay attention! As Professor Beckmann has said, “Sound in air is like light in gravity.” Gravity is the aether. Thus, just as sound in air is a constant in all directions (no wind, etc.), light in gravity is a constant in all directions. Looking back to outer space, perhaps the differential gravitys of dual stars merge, resulting in a constant speed of light for both stars as they approach Earth.
Light travels at c in its local gravitational field