Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum c is not constant

Thank you dehammer. I will be grateful for many Moons for that precise clarification. Now I rest.
jjw

C is not constant.
_________________

Apparently not.
Re: http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Note regarding my earlier reply.

I had suggeseted that the use of the red shift to determine that objects are going away from us could be in error and suggested that the red shift method should be studied to see if gravitationl effects, like our suns gravitation, where we are viewing the light of distant stars, my be contributing to the red shift making its use erronious.

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

The article explores Einstein's GR theory on the effect of gravity on light leaving a massive object causing it to lose energy. I am not acquainted with the details of GR so I am not going to attempt an explanation. My intent is to suggest an anology between light leaving the vicinity of a massive body losing energy putting it towards the red shifted side of the spectrum and light entering the gravitational area of a massive object, like our sun, causing the light to move to the red shifted side of the spectrum. The greater the reduction in speed may equate to the greater red shift that is displayed.

The point is simply if we are satisfied that gravity can effect starlight and cause it to be redshifted why would not that same effect occure when the distant light enters our gravitation area created by the Sun and the planets?

jjw

no because if the gravity was affecting it, it would be increasing it. the effect would be much greater the closer it got to a large gravity source such as the sun. light that passed within a small distance of the sun would be effected a million times more than one that did not come anywhere near it.

all stars have a unique "fingerprint" of light spectrum. If gravity was effecting it that fingerprint would be red/blue shifted a lot when it passed near the sun when compaired to the same star when the earth was between the star and the sun. The effect of the sun on the light passing near it has been studied and no red/blue shifting has been found. If it had, the theory would have been changed.

This is not to say that there might not be a very small amount of effect, but not as much as you are saying. Also the effect of gravity of the sun on light approaching it would be in the opposite direction. the light that is coming from away from the sun would be accelerated, not slowed down. Light leaving a blackhole or something is red shifted because it is moving away. light that is coming to us from the stars would be coming towards a gravity sourse, so it would blue shifted.

Dear Dehammer:

I think you are a master of the obvious. Your vision should never be tempered with any thing new. In that manner you, and all of your kind, will always be right.

Good night.
jjw

science is alway finding thing new. The thing is in science, you have to have proof, which agrees with you. If you have speculation that goes contrary to known facts, you have to be able to explain why those facts are different than they should be if your speculation is correct. otherwise, its not really going to be noticed or accepted by anyone that has any knowledge of the facts.

in this instance, you claim that gravity should have a major effect that is reverse of the known effects of gravity. The facts that are known show that the effect is not there. If you can come up with an explination why the known facts disprove your idea yet somehow do prove it with the explination, then you will change science. simply stating that something like gravity will have a certain effect, when its never shown to have in the past will do nothing.

OK.

I offer you a hypothetical based on others theory that gravity can cause light spectrum to move to the red end. You say there is no proof.

The light that is measured from distant stars is leaning to the red part of the spectrum as we see it here at earth. That light must make its way through the Suns gravitational field and if you will pay attention, you will be compelled to give consideration to the fact that my statement is correct when considered only on the basis of the red shift. THE LIGHT IS RED SHIFTED.

The next issue is which prospect is a better discription of what is taking place. Is it due to a "doppler" effect or a gravitational effect, that we see light to be red shifted here at Earth?

DEH, You say:
"in this instance, you claim that gravity should have a major effect that is reverse of the known effects of gravity. The facts that are known show that the effect is not there"

Can you see now how far removed from logic that contention is. There is NO question that the light is red shifted. The issue is the cause.

I normally enjoy exchanging viewpoints with people but you tend to make it laborious.
jjw

I read through this thread, and hey; lots of good stuff. It reminds me of questions that I've had in the past few years.
It was thoughts about redshifting, among other "relativity" things, (as with your comment below) that led me to see that maybe gravity isn't really a force at all (in the conventional sense). I mean c'mon, a 400 year old "law?" I've wondered, if we didn't have Einstein, what theories would we have come up with to explain why our satellites experienced time dilation.

As for "c," I think of light as something that is connecting two things, and in "reality" they are touching; but from our perspective they are separated by space. I won't go into my thoughts about "space," but from my viewpoint "c" is the speed of space. A visual representation of this (although technically contradicting what I'm trying to describe) would be to view light as a crack in space ("c" would be the speed at which the crack propogates).

Regarding questions about solar system effects, wiki the Pioneer Anomaly and you might get an idea; nothing specific, just a thought....
Regarding your: "The point is simply if we are satisfied that gravity can effect starlight and cause it to be redshifted why would not that same effect occure when the distant light enters our gravitation area created by the Sun and the planets? -jjw

The gravity of a massive object does redshift the light due to the gravity's "stretching" effect on the local space. This would be a minute amount compared with the large redshifting that occurs due to the expansion of space during the long voyage to our local gravity area where I suppose a small amount of redshifting (or maybe de-redshifting?) occurs. Would the light be gaining (or losing?) energy as it approached our gravity "well?"

At least I think that's the conventional explanation. But that is probably not what is "really" going on. That's just our best method so far of understanding it. I'd encourage you not to rely on GR to picture reality, just use it as a guide for finding things to question.

Hope this provides some cheer,
~~SAMwik

Hi:
The topic was, " C is not constant "

I suppose we are entitled to know if that is offered as a fact or as a conjecture open to more discussion. One way to approach the issue is to explain why light travels at about 186,281 miles per second. If the beleivers could do that it would be a major step to solving the issue. We could then use that info to see if larger stars put out faster light and smaller stars less. Or we might find that size was not really important as some contend.

We measure light in the Earth's neighborhood at about 186,281 miles per second but no one seems to know why. I think I know why. I have published the reason and the math but I do not expect to find any converts.
jjw

jjw wrote:
"I have published the reason and the math but I do not expect to find any converts."

Where?

Hi DA; thank you for asking.

Note that I have triggered the invisible message board recently so whatever I use my time line to write may go bye bye as fast as I enter it. I think it may be Rusty or Kate helping me to be on their track.

Last year I had the silly premonition that I would die in my 77th year so i rushed to get some of my lifes hobby notes together and get them published. I paid for the publishing because I knew there would be no interest by a publisher in a lawyers view of the Solar System.
Also I had no time to waste while they decide how to reject it.

The book is Surfing the Solar System, printed by Author House, ISBN # 1-4208-4452-0. The Forum managers should note I am not plugging the book here and, in fact I am currently re-writing it with a new title to do a better job of it.

Ther is no need to discuss this in reference to the book I can offer the substance of the issue.
I tried to accept Uncle Al challenge but my reply to him was deleted.

jjw

This is good.

The masters will not let me tell you.
Possibly they will permit me to send you an private message.
jjw

I went back and possibly it went through albiet a little delayed.
jjw

DA:

I no longer feel comfortable on this Forum.

This is a good time for me to focus on the important things in my life.
Cheers!
jjw