Traveling light and gravity.

[William Gaatjes]

I have a thought experiment and i would like to know what other people think.

I have 2 masses, M1 with the mass of 0,5*sun mass (our sun). And i have M2 with the mass of a 100 sun masses.

We take mass M1, let it radiate some light. Then we take mass M2 at the same position such that the point of emitting the radiation is the same as M1 and let it radiate some light.

Question 1.
Both masses radiate a certain electromagnetic wave , lets choose green light.
For simplicity sake both masses are not moving.
What i would like to know, what is the effect of gravity of those masses on the light that is emitted. What would happen to the light, does it get more red or more blue or does nothing happen at all.

Question 2.

And if both emit radiation from the same distance to a certain stationary point in space near the earth, which light would arrive first ?


I will reveal my honest own answers later after enough replies . Even if my answers are wrong or not. When i am wrong, i want an explanation 🙂.

Forgot to mention gravity lenses.

 

[f4phantom2500]

i believe what you're asking is if the gravity of these masses would:

1. impact space-time around the mass in such a way as to distort the color of the light emitted from the star

2. impact space-time around the mass in such a way as to substantially slow down the light, enough to notably affect the time it takes to get here.

1. i do not believe that it would change the spectrum of the light. even though gravity does bend light, i'm pretty sure that once the light escapes the gravity of the star...er, mass...it "levels out" to its original properties, the same as space-time "levels out".

2. the light would arrive at a later time from the heavier mass, but i do not believe that it would be a very significant difference, since as soon as the light escapes the gravity well of the mass, it travels at the same speed regardless of its originating point. i don't know the equations to figure this sort of thing out so i can't be very specific on the difference.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Maybe i am wrong and someone can explain to me what error i would have made if so.

2 i too think the radiation from the heavier mass would take longer too arrive.


1 i would think the wavelength would not change either but something tells me that is not right.

If i understand correct, the more energy a photon has, the higher its wave length. Maybe i am wrong, if i would take a single photon and shoot of a very heavy mass it's wavelength would not change because the effect of the gravity effect seems to be larger then the wavelength similar like refraction, but i think the photon would actually loose energy and thus have a lower wavelength. Because the gravity is affecting the photon as a whole that is when the photon shows it's "particle" behaviour. The gravity is pulling the photon while the photon is oscillating.
It would be the same as the famous 2 clocks experiment from Albert Einstein.
And that would mean the photon would start to oscillate faster(The wavelength would get shorter) while leaving the mass further and further and gravity is weaker and weaker up to a point of equilibrium. Thus blue shift.

I always wondered if there is such a thing as an event horizon for a normal star or a heavy mass as a galaxy.

I would think there is , but is it a sudden change or is it leveled out at such a distance that it does not affect a single a photon ?



I wonder too about what this gravity of a black hole would do to a photon.
If i understand it correct, a black hole makes the wavelength of a photon larger so large that something happens too it. But what ?

About clocks running slower while in stronger gravity fields.
http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr10/einstein/index.html


I have some links here as well about variyng decay of atom clocks during gravity or solar eclipses or solarflares
.
http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch/eclipse/full.html

http://arxivblog.com/?p=596

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108


I do not like space time as it is most of the time shown. A 2D distortion.
Gravity is 3D and as such can be seen as a sphere where the strength can be seen as a level of opacity : non transparent in the center and getting more transparent as the distance to the center of mass is increasing. The trick is, is this sphere huge or not ?

EDIT:
Forgot to mention :

Some say photons seem to have no mass. But we do seem to have gravitational lenses. And gravitational lenses seem to affect photons. And gravity is the interaction between different mass objects. And i keep on thinking about inertia.

 

[f4phantom2500]

i think that, if gravity were to affect the wavelength of the light, then there would be a corresponding red shift due to the effect of the gravity, but as it leaves the gravity well, a blue shift, thus it would "even out" to its "original" color. i know that gravity causes light to bend, but i am not sure if it actually changes the color of the light.

the gravity of a black hole is so intense that light can not escape it, so even though the singularity of the black hole itself is infinitesimally small, the area surrounding the singularity where light can not escape appears to the outside observer as a "black hole".


i saw a special on the science channel recently that was hosted by stephen hawking on the subject of time dilation. he said that, if you were to get "very close" (unfortunately i don't believe it specified how close) to the galactic center and orbit around it in a space ship, assuming you would be able to survive the entire endeavor, time would be moving at about 50% the rate that it does here on earth. he went on to say that, if you could travel near the speed of light in a space ship (i believe 99%+), you could cross the galaxy, a 100,000 lightyear distance, and only 80 years would pass within the ship.

interestingly, this effect is of course not only limited to things moving extremely fast or near extreme gravity. the satellites that compose the GPS network have to be recalibrated daily because their internal clocks go out of synch by something like 3 milliseconds (or less, don't remember the exact unit, but it was small) per day. this may not seem significant, but actually it would throw off the calibration of the network by about 6 miles. hell, technically, if you're standing next to a giant mountain or something that's fairly heavy on earth, time will be moving slower for you than people that are farther away from it...unless you're like on top of the mountain, in which case it'd probably be faster for you since your altitude is higher.

 

[William Gaatjes]

i think that, if gravity were to affect the wavelength of the light, then there would be a corresponding red shift due to the effect of the gravity, but as it leaves the gravity well, a blue shift, thus it would "even out" to its "original" color. i know that gravity causes light to bend, but i am not sure if it actually changes the color of the light.

i do not think it would revert to its original color. Just to a color that fits to that amount of gravity. But since we are affected by the same gravity as well while measuring we would not notice it. This to me sounds like the frame of reference as in inertial experiments or as Doppler shifts experiments from Albert Einstein. I also think that if this is the case, the shift would be to small to measure with current equipment.

Ok, Assuming gravity can affect(not proven i think) photons. Now try to imagine it while multiple gravity sources are around. This gravity would affect everything, thus in the thought experiment if we would try to measure the effect, we would not measure it because the gravity works on everything, including our measuring equipment. That is unless an experimental setup is created where the gravity has different effects on the object we want to measure and on the object we use as a measuring device. I wonder if that would be possible. Because then we would know the difference

the gravity of a black hole is so intense that light can not escape it, so even though the singularity of the black hole itself is infinitesimally small, the area surrounding the singularity where light can not escape appears to the outside observer as a "black hole".

I think it is better to forget the singularity as a point of no size. A black hole has a size, it is not infinitely small, i think it is even bigger then anybody would expect. But that is my opninion.

 

[f4phantom2500]

i do not think it would revert to its original color. Just to a color that fits to that amount of gravity. But since we are affected by the same gravity as well while measuring we would not notice it. This to me sounds like the frame of reference as in inertial experiments or as Doppler shifts experiments from Albert Einstein. I also think that if this is the case, the shift would be to small to measure with current equipment.

That's what I meant, by "original" I meant green.

Ok, Assuming gravity can affect(not proven i think) photons. Now try to imagine it while multiple gravity sources are around. This gravity would affect everything, thus in the thought experiment if we would try to measure the effect, we would not measure it because the gravity works on everything, including our measuring equipment. That is unless an experimental setup is created where the gravity has different effects on the object we want to measure and on the object we use as a measuring device. I wonder if that would be possible. Because then we would know the difference

you should read this:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

i think you'll find it quite interesting. i read about half of it last night before my brain stopped processing the information, lol, but it is quite interesting.

I think it is better to forget the singularity as a point of no size. A black hole has a size, it is not infinitely small, i think it is even bigger then anybody would expect. But that is my opninion.

you know those things that they have in malls sometimes where you throw a penny in it and it rolls down a curved edge toward the hole in the center? i'm pretty sure it's like that; the singularity itself is really small, but if you include the event horizon, it is of course bigger than that. this is why conventional physics makes no sense with regards to a black hole; general relativity would have to be considered due to the large mass, but quantum mechanics would have to apply due to the small size of the singularity itself. since we haven't figured out the unified theory, it just all breaks down.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/poster1.html

 

[William Gaatjes]

That's what I meant, by "original" I meant green.



you should read this:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

i think you'll find it quite interesting. i read about half of it last night before my brain stopped processing the information, lol, but it is quite interesting.

I will read it, but

you know those things that they have in malls sometimes where you throw a penny in it and it rolls down a curved edge toward the hole in the center? i'm pretty sure it's like that; the singularity itself is really small, but if you include the event horizon, it is of course bigger than that. this is why conventional physics makes no sense with regards to a black hole; general relativity would have to be considered due to the large mass, but quantum mechanics would have to apply due to the small size of the singularity itself. since we haven't figured out the unified theory, it just all breaks down.

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/poster1.html

I do not feel comfortable with those examples of the websites.

But to come back to the thought experiment, you do realize that a lot of distances and ages of objects in the universe are determined by redshift. Now if the thought experiment we where doing would be correct, this means that all those measurements and models about the universe based on redshift should then be revised if this is true and is not taken into account as well during those measurements and models.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Question 1.
Both masses radiate a certain electromagnetic wave , lets choose green light.
For simplicity sake both masses are not moving.
What i would like to know, what is the effect of gravity of those masses on the light that is emitted. What would happen to the light, does it get more red or more blue or does nothing happen at all.

My understanding is that nothing happens. All effects present also affect your measuring sticks.

Question 2.

And if both emit radiation from the same distance to a certain stationary point in space near the earth, which light would arrive first ?

Because length is tied to the speed of light in a vacuum, when you say, "from the same distance," it means the same number of light-seconds. So if they are both n light-seconds away from point x, the light from each will reach point x at the same time.

But to come back to the thought experiment, you do realize that a lot of distances and ages of objects in the universe are determined by redshift. Now if the thought experiment we where doing would be correct, this means that all those measurements and models about the universe based on redshift should then be revised if this is true and is not taken into account as well during those measurements and models.

Sorry, the redshift attributed to velocity does not correspond to mass. That's why it's not attributed to mass.

You are in desperate need of a physics class. And this is coming from somebody who's never taken one.
When my understanding gleaned from Wikipedia trumps yours in its entirety by a few orders of magnitude, you should really take a good long look at yourself. Granted, my IQ is in the 99th percentile, but this is still stuff I've just picked up casually.

I suggest you go bury your head in A Brief History of Time. This is not to be confused with The Land Before Time, which I think would present you with some elements you're not quite ready for yet. (And the sad thing is, I really think there may be some truth to that. I read William as going off on odd tangents that ignore relevant facts because his mind is damaged such that it simply cannot process certain relationships. So fictional elements may not necessarily be processed correctly.)

 

[William Gaatjes]

You know f4phantom2500, there is something else that i find interesting. When i take the idea to a "particle" which we know has mass, the electron what happens to the electron ? If i would take hydrogen for example what effect would this be on the oscillation of that electron if that hydrogen atom is on sea level and if that hydrogen atom is high in the ionosphere assuming that it is not ionized during the trip. What would this mean to the relationship between the electron and the proton. We assume that the nuclear forces are so much stronger then gravity but does gravity still have an noticable effect ? We know the effects on the nuclear decay of atom clocks. If we take the solar eclipse for example and the effect this has on the atom clocks.



And what does that change of time depending on gravity means for this formula ? This formula is from Werner Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html#c2

Another thought experiment i had when i woke up. When i am in a train and i am accelerating, i feel the force and reaction force in my back. Here is a thought experiment that is perhaps crazy but i think funny :

What if gravity is the result of an expanding acceleration of the universe. Then gravity is not a cause but a result. When i stand on a large mass i feel gravity, a force towards the center of the mass. What if this gravity is really an reaction force.

Perhaps i am wrong but i find this interesting. ^_^
I am certain many people have thought of this before. I wonder what the answers would be, while being wrong or not.

 

[William Gaatjes]

My understanding is that nothing happens. All effects present also affect your measuring sticks.



Because length is tied to the speed of light in a vacuum, when you say, "from the same distance," it means the same number of light-seconds. So if they are both n light-seconds away from point x, the light from each will reach point x at the same time.



Sorry, the redshift attributed to velocity does not correspond to mass. That's why it's not attributed to mass.

You are in desperate need of a physics class. And this is coming from somebody who's never taken one.
When my understanding gleaned from Wikipedia trumps yours in its entirety by a few orders of magnitude, you should really take a good long look at yourself. Granted, my IQ is in the 99th percentile, but this is still stuff I've just picked up casually.

I suggest you go bury your head in A Brief History of Time. This is not to be confused with The Land Before Time, which I think would present you with some elements you're not quite ready for yet. (And the sad thing is, I really think there may be some truth to that. I read William as going off on odd tangents that ignore relevant facts because his mind is damaged such that it simply cannot process certain relationships. So fictional elements may not necessarily be processed correctly.)

You are boring and the one that is truly arrogant. I have no desire for a conversation with you. Besides trusting blindly on wikipedia is not that wise but anway . From your own wikipedia :
Gravitational redshift. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=atom-interferometer-measures-einste-2010-02-17

At least i am on the right track because i was not aware of this. Your arrogant post made me look for it 🙂. And in the light of this moment, i thank you for writing like you did.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Because length is tied to the speed of light in a vacuum, when you say, "from the same distance," it means the same number of light-seconds. So if they are both n light-seconds away from point x, the light from each will reach point x at the same time.

actually, since the more massive object distorts space-time more than the less massive object, time itself would be slower in the vicinity around the former. thus, even though they're the same distance from earth, it would take the light a longer period of time, relative to our observation from earth, to reach here. i'm not exactly sure how much but i know it wouldn't be extremely significant, especially when you consider that, once light escapes the gravity well of either object, it would be traveling at the same relative speed regardless. it's like the light from the smaller object has a head start.

You know f4phantom2500, there is something else that i find interesting. When i take the idea to a "particle" which we know has mass, the electron what happens to the electron ? If i would take hydrogen for example what effect would this be on the oscillation of that electron if that hydrogen atom is on sea level and if that hydrogen atom is high in the ionosphere assuming that it is not ionized during the trip. What would this mean to the relationship between the electron and the proton. We assume that the nuclear forces are so much stronger then gravity but does gravity still have an noticable effect ? We know the effects on the nuclear decay of atom clocks. If we take the solar eclipse for example and the effect this has on the atom clocks.



And what does that change of time depending on gravity means for this formula ? This formula is from Werner Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

i'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking. are you asking if the oscillation of an atom would be affected significantly by the difference of gravity between sea level and the ionosphere? i don't know. gravity is weak compared to the other forces. the electromagnetic force between the atoms that compose your feet and the atoms that compose the ground that you stand on is enough to offset the effect of the entire gravity of the earth. otherwise, you'd fall right through the ground!

Another thought experiment i had when i woke up. When i am in a train and i am accelerating, i feel the force and reaction force in my back. Here is a thought experiment that is perhaps crazy but i think funny :

What if gravity is the result of an expanding acceleration of the universe. Then gravity is not a cause but a result. When i stand on a large mass i feel gravity, a force towards the center of the mass. What if this gravity is really an reaction force.

Perhaps i am wrong but i find this interesting. ^_^
I am certain many people have thought of this before. I wonder what the answers would be, while being wrong or not.

i don't think that idea holds water, although it is interesting. if the expansion of the universe was the direct cause of gravity, then we would be torn apart from this constant distortion. personally, i believe that it has something to do with a multiverse. like, if there is a given number of universes, then gravity would be the force that permeates throughout them, which would explain why it is so weak.


also you guys need to chill out. just respectfully disagree; there's no need to attack each other personally. this is a complex subject, and it's in poor taste to ridicule someone just because you disagree with them, no matter how you view the other person's ideas. everything we think we know about the universe is just the conclusions we have drawn based on our thoughts and observations. these conclusions have been drawn over thousands of years by people who think outside the box and have "ridiculous" ideas. of course, that doesn't mean every radical idea holds water, but an invalid answer is just as valuable as a valid one; it allows us to narrow down possibilities. and, honestly, our knowledge about the universe is extremely limited; we're all just children in a sandbox, so let's just try to play nice, shall we?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Perhaps i am wrong but i find this interesting. ^_^

The Earth is not expanding at 9.81 m/s^2.

You really shouldn't take stock in your feelings. Your brain is broken.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Just a suggestion, can you post these in OT next time?

What if gravity is the result of an expanding acceleration of the universe. Then gravity is not a cause but a result. When i stand on a large mass i feel gravity, a force towards the center of the mass. What if this gravity is really an reaction force.

A reactionary force to what?

 

[f4phantom2500]

The Earth is not expanding at 9.81 m/s^2.

You really shouldn't take stock in your feelings. Your brain is broken.

regardless of whether i agree with you on the validity of William's ideas, every time you insult him i lose more and more respect for you as a person.

Just a suggestion, can you post these in OT next time?


A reactionary force to what?

what he's saying is that, hypothetically, literally everything is expanding at the same rate, such that we could not detect it. for example, if an inch expanded to a foot, although it is bigger, we wouldn't be able to tell. this, i believe, assumes that the entire universe is accelerating at exactly the same rate, and that gravity could be a result of this expansion and dependent upon the mass of the objects in question. it's pretty out there and i do not think that it holds water, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You are boring and the one that is truly arrogant.

I act like I'm superior to most because I demonstrably am. That is neither to my fault nor, except for the minor expenditure of some effort, to my credit. My level of raw intellect in comparison to the mass of humanity is a situation that just is. And since I don't feel like playing dumb, here we are.

From your own wikipedia :
Gravitational redshift. :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

And that would be redshift attributed to gravity, not the redshift attributed to velocity which I referenced.

Please keep separate items separate.

 

[f4phantom2500]

I act like I'm superior to most because I demonstrably am. That is neither to my fault nor, except for the minor expenditure of some effort, to my credit. My level of raw intellect in comparison to the mass of humanity is a situation that just is. And since I don't feel like playing dumb, here we are.

you may very well be the most intelligent person here, but everyone here deserves equal respect as human beings. you can dissect people's ideas, the products of their intellect, and point out inconsistencies and falsehoods as much as you want. that is the true utility of a higher intellect; the ability to see these things where others can not. however, attacking people on a personal level solely because of their ideas makes you the one that is less deserving of respect.

your most recent post seems less ridiculing than the previous ones, but you have to realize that you shouldn't feel like you have something to prove, because you don't. nobody wants to fight here, we're just people having an intellectual conversation.

 

[silverpig]

I act like I'm superior to most because I demonstrably am. That is neither to my fault nor, except for the minor expenditure of some effort, to my credit. My level of raw intellect in comparison to the mass of humanity is a situation that just is. And since I don't feel like playing dumb, here we are.



And that would be redshift attributed to gravity, not the redshift attributed to velocity which I referenced.

Please keep separate items separate.

You've fucked up pretty much every explanation in this thread.

There is redshift associated with gravity, so assuming the same radii, the more massive star would appear "redder". This is an arbitrarily contrived example due to completely ignoring stellar physics. A better way to posit the question would be to ask what would happen to laser light shone radially outwards from the surface of two objects of the same radius but different mass.

And the redshift from the expansion of the universe is not due to velocity at all.

 

[DominionSeraph]

actually, since the more massive object distorts space-time more than the less massive object, time itself would be slower in the vicinity around the former. thus, even though they're the same distance from earth, it would take the light a longer period of time, relative to our observation from earth, to reach here.

5 light-seconds is not 5.1 light-seconds. If an object is 5.1 light-seconds away, it is not the same distance away as an object 5 light-seconds.
The only thing at an equal distance to something 5 light-seconds away is something from which it takes light 5 seconds to travel. Any other increment of time refers to a different unit of distance.

Time and space are included in spacetime. You're trying to treat those as 3 different things, as though there is a straight line through curved spacetime by which to measure distance and a clock outside of both by which to measure time.

 

[f4phantom2500]

5 light-seconds is not 5.1 light-seconds. If an object is 5.1 light-seconds away, it is not the same distance away as an object 5 light-seconds.
The only thing at an equal distance to something 5 light-seconds away is something from which it takes light 5 seconds to travel. Any other increment of time refers to a different unit of distance.

Time and space are included in spacetime. You're trying to treat those as 3 different things, as though there is a straight line through curved spacetime by which to measure distance and a clock outside of both by which to measure time.

i think you missed my point. it is true that the light from both objects is covering the same distance, and consequently the light travels for the same amount of time from the perspective of the light itself (that is to say, if you could put a clock on a beam of light from each object, the clocks would show the exact same time once they reached earth). however, since the more massive object distorts space-time more than the smaller object, to the outside observer who is not affected by either mass (e.g. earth), it would take longer, from our perspective, for the light from the more massive object to get here.

 

[DominionSeraph]

There is redshift associated with gravity

I didn't say there wasn't.
Saying a subset of X cannot be attributed to Y isn't saying that no subset of X is attributable to Y.

And the redshift from the expansion of the universe is not due to velocity at all.

Apparent velocity due to the expansion of spacetime. My bad. Wouldn't want to be magically accelerating masses and violating a few laws of physics, there. Although that would be cool.

regardless of whether i agree with you on the validity of William's ideas, every time you insult him i lose more and more respect for you as a person.

you may very well be the most intelligent person here, but everyone here deserves equal respect as human beings.

This is the Highly Technical forum, not the, "Impress everyone with your social skills while casually hanging out," forum.
This is tech. Things are either black or white. It isn't proper to treat everything as gray just to baby someone who is out of his league. The truth takes precedence, and the simple fact is that the truth is not going to be kind to one such as William.
That's just the nature of reality. Don't get upset at me over it, I didn't make it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

i think you missed my point. it is true that the light from both objects is covering the same distance, and consequently the light travels for the same amount of time from the perspective of the light itself (that is to say, if you could put a clock on a beam of light from each object, the clocks would show the exact same time once they reached earth). however, since the more massive object distorts space-time more than the smaller object, to the outside observer who is not affected by either mass (e.g. earth), it would take longer, from our perspective, for the light from the more massive object to get here.

Distance is relative. From our reference frame, the distance to the more massive object would be greater. So it fails the initial condition of being one of two objects equidistant from a point.

For them to be of equal distance, they must be of equal distance. Meaning equal time.

 

[f4phantom2500]

This is the Highly Technical forum, not the, "Impress everyone with your social skills while casually hanging out," forum.
This is tech. Things are either black or white. It isn't proper to treat everything as gray just to baby someone who is out of his league. The truth takes precedence, and the simple fact is that the truth is not going to be kind to one such as William.
That's just the nature of reality. Don't get upset at me over it, I didn't make it.

so you think that, because he's asking questions and trying to learn more about an interesting topic, he deserves to be ridiculed and put down because he's misguided? how would you like it if you went to ask a scientist about some of their work, and he treated you the way you treated William here? really look back. you just kept insulting him and all he said in retort is that he didn't want to talk to you. it's not about babying someone, it's about not being a dick. why can't you just be cool?

 

[f4phantom2500]

Distance is relative. From our reference frame, the distance to the more massive object would be greater. So it fails the initial condition of being one of two objects equidistant from a point.

For them to be of equal distance, they must be of equal distance. Meaning equal time.

http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060828065238AA2gIcK

consider that the closer you are to a massive object, the slower you age relative to something that's farther away from the object. this is factual. they have to recalibrate the clocks on the GPS every day because the difference in time distortion would equate to the satellites being off by 6 miles a day. so, let's say you have a point a. there is a 100 mile radius around point a where time flows at a rate 1/2 that of the flow rate of time outside of the radius. that is to say, if you went inside this 100 mile radius, you would age 1 year for every 2 years you would age on earth. this would be caused by an arbitrary source of gravity that causes the space-time within the radius to compress in a way that would cause time inside the radius to appear to move at half speed relative to the flow of time outside of the radius. since time is compressed by a relative factor of 2:1, space would also be compressed by a relative factor of 2:1. thus, the 100 mile radius would appear to be a 50 mile radius to an outside observer. since the speed of light is constant, light emitting from the center point would be moving at 1c relative to space-time within the radius, but outside of the radius it would appear to be moving at .5c due to the distortion. correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[DominionSeraph]

so you think that, because he's asking questions and trying to learn more about an interesting topic, he deserves to be ridiculed and put down because he's misguided?

I take it you're new to Highly Technical?
This is William we're talking about. If he can't find pseudo-science, he makes it up himself. He doesn't even begin to critique an idea before posting it. And he has shown time and time again that he can't get a handle on the accepted explanations for observed phenomena.

William is not going to learn anything. He is going to go from silly idea to silly idea because he lacks the ability to properly critique them and lacks the ability to understand an idea with multiple related parts which form a cohesive whole. (And those two things are likely related. To critique an idea you need to hold its component parts, then you add a known good and check for contradiction. Rinse and repeat until you've covered all the angles. I believe William's storage space for ideas he's actively processing may be much smaller than a normal person's, leading him to be unable to add the check bit. Limited active storage would also leave him unable to grasp our massively interconnected scientific theories in their entireties.)

As an analogy:

2+6+3+8+1+3+9+6+4
Normal person: 42.
William would come up with: "I have an idea: Considering 2+6, 8! Oh, but 6+3, 9! But considering 3 in relation to 8, 11! Looking at 1, I think 8 is related, so let's consider the implications of 9! 1 works with 3, so 4! 9 and 3 are obviously related, therefore 12 is the answer. I have a 6 and 9, so I would like you to consider my theory of 15. We have 6 and 4, so science is obviously wrong about 42 -- they haven't considered 10!"

William is smart. He can add things up all day. But smarts aren't enough to properly theorize -- you have to have perspective.
It gets annoying after a while to endlessly throw check bits at him when you know it's not gonna change things. He'll probably keep trucking 'till the day he dies, but it's a journey to nowhere, and there's no helping him get off that path when it's the only one he can process.
And it's doubly annoying because you can't just leave things like, "Maybe gravity is due to the universe expanding," lying around unattended. So that's just more work for the rest of us.

 

[William Gaatjes]

regardless of whether i agree with you on the validity of William's ideas, every time you insult him i lose more and more respect for you as a person.



what he's saying is that, hypothetically, literally everything is expanding at the same rate, such that we could not detect it. for example, if an inch expanded to a foot, although it is bigger, we wouldn't be able to tell. this, i believe, assumes that the entire universe is accelerating at exactly the same rate, and that gravity could be a result of this expansion and dependent upon the mass of the objects in question. it's pretty out there and i do not think that it holds water, but it is an interesting concept nonetheless.

I thank you for your open mind.
Although it sometimes may seem that i am preaching the truth and physics is wrong, that is not my intention.

I just encourage people to think how famous people like Albert Einstein or Newton or anybody of those way more intelligent persons then me, came to their conclusion. So many times i feel i am confronted with people who may very well be smarter then me in a certain discipline, but all they seem to do is sum up what they have learned from grinding texts without understanding what these texts actually imply. You and a few other clearly seem to be the exception and understand what i am doing, that is to encourage people to think. A little redundant thinking how others came to their conclusion is a good thing. I like this myself, because i myself am too interested how models and theories came to be and how nature came to be. And like everybody else, i have the question "why ?" and "what is my purpose ?". It is a surprisingly easy answer. To live life and help life evolve and sustain.

With you at least although we may not always agree on all subjects, we are stimulating each other to think. And that is what science should be about, even amateur science. In honesty all humans should be stimulating each other to think before acting, but i am wondering off.
I like these discussion because i admit i myself do not fully understand everything i post, but i do am interested and try to learn and share, like you seem to do as well. Although i am addressing you, i think i know that i do not need to write this to you, but for the other this post might help.

The problem with direwren and dominicseraph as with many people long ago ,today and i am sad to say still in the future is indeed what you state. Instead of a discussion with arguments why i am wrong just name calling. This proves that they do no seem to know or care about the subject. There are too many humans on this world that seem to fundamentally defend a certain dogma, religious or scientific and not even understanding why. Fundamental hooligans... No interest for the subject, just want to brawl... :\