I was wondering if that is what you were talking about. Is that your reasoning, that the photons themselves are the first touch of gravity change?
I tried to point out earlier that even though a photon and a small cloud of mass field are made of the same substance, there is a critical difference. A light photon is a puff of uniformly propagating affectance. A mass field is extremely randomized affectance.
That difference is significant because a photon striking Earth will not cause any attraction to the Sun at all. In fact, it will help propel the Earth away. When absorbed, photons add to the momentum in the direction they were headed. So when the sunlight stops hitting Earth, the Earth would actually momentarily be drawn more toward the Sun because the solar wind pressure had been suddenly removed while the mass field close to Earth was still stable.
And now that I think about it a little more, the Earth’s mass field would actually help retard any changes in the Sun’s portion of that field. The two fields overlap (and aren’t really “two separate fields”, but you know what I mean) and the more concentrated regions, near the Sun and near the Earth will change slower because they are actually “mass”, merely extremely thin, light mass (scrambled affectance).
It still might be true that an ultra minuscule change in the mass field will occur at Earth at the speed of light, but I am not certain why to believe that yet and I am pretty certain that isn’t the kind of ultra, ultra small effect that Trix was asking about.
It was taught from Newton days that mass had the property of gravitational force. Starting shortly after Einstein, it was taught that mass is merely bent spacetime. In both cases the notion of gravitation is seen as being “caused by” the mass (or bent spacetime). But actually the reverse is just as true: mass is caused by an increase in the a mass field (“gravitational field”) or more precisely, an increase in Affectance density to the point where the higher concentration goes asymptotic and grows with the surrounding mass field.
And the whole “bent spacetime” is merely a perspective used to calculate certain situations. It has nothing to do with reality.
The only time the mass object (the highest concentration of affectance) comes before the associated mass field is when the object is propelled very quickly into a region and even then, as explained before, some of the mass field accompanies the object at the same velocity as the object. And if that object was to very suddenly stop, a portion of the mass field surrounding it would sway past the object before settling more uniformly around the object. Mass field have their own momentum.
So what we call “mass” and what we call a “gravity field” are actually made of the same substance, affectance, but one is very, very concentrated and the other is very, very unconcentrated. The following anime displays the proportions of concentrations between what we call the “mass particle” and the ambient mas field known as “gravity field”.
James and Zinnat, you both describe gravity as an emitted substance, a cloud that propogates away from the source.
We can safely say the Relativity Mechanics and Popular Science is rubbish, so let’s not even include them in the discussion.
My Unified Field Theory states that the universe is like an ocean, and operates on a basic universal fact.
The basic universal fact is this. That objects move from higher pressure, to lower pressure. This fact drives all mechanisms in the universe.
So, picture space is like a water. Space is like the opposite of matter. Since space is the opposite of matter, it would move towards an area of less space. An area which has less space, is called matter, or rock.
The space, which is like a water, and matter, rock, are like holes, to space. The water moves into the holes and drags matter along with it, causing gravity phenomenon.
So in my Unified Field Theory, gravity is not an emitted substance, rather it is the sea of space, flowing into matter.
However, based on my own theory, I don’t know the answer to my original question.
It puzzles me how gravity could be an emitted substance, and yet some how drag things the opposite direction of its motion.
Emmm… no. I have tried to explain that gravity GROWS around a concentration of affectance, mass. It is not emitted like light to some force field generator. A gravity field is an accumulation of affectance around a mass object.
I generally like that, for this reason: The Eternal Universe – An Ocean of Motion, but I can’t abide by the notion that “space moves into matter” (similar to platospuppy’s idea that matter represents a “hole” causing a vacuum, pulling “space” and other holes, masses, into it.
I considered that (as well as the book), but I think that I am too old and tired for that battle (experienced too much).
Close.
A high wave would be light, although not spreading as a wave does in the ocean. And a negative monoparticle, an electron, would be a whirlpool. A positive monoparticle, positron, would be an iceberg, or inverted whirlpool standing high in the air. An atom would be a mountainous iceberg with small whirlpools circling it.
And interestingly, just as the ocean has a bottom, the is a bottom to affectance toward the very center of every electron.
It looks to me that my understanding of photon is causing a trouble, though I got other things right, more or less. Since long, I have some problems in understanding what photon actually is, how it behaves and effect other particles. I tried to comprehend all that many times but never got the gist of the issue. I would like to explore it further.
Physics says that a photon has no rest mass but only momentum or relativistic mass, which means that all its energy is hidden in its speed and it has no dead/rest weight whatsoever. With my limited understanding of science, I find it hard to follow how that can happen ever.
Physics says that E = mc2, but then how can there can be any E ever, if m is 0. My naive mind is unable to comprehend that. There must be some m also, no matter how small it may be. Or, photons must have some magical properties like the Biblical God!
Secondly, if photons have only relativistic mass, how can they ever effected by the gravity, but they get affected because we have evidence for that. The photon bending by the gravity cannot be explained unless we cannot use the concept of curved spacetime.
Thirdly, I have even a bigger problem in understanding the concept and explanation of different colors of the light.
Physics says that the frequency ν, wavelength λ, and the speed of light c are related by λν = c. That explains that the speeds of the photons of different colors will also be the same. Now, the Planck–Einstein relation for a photon is expressed as E = hc/λ, but if c here would be replaced by λν as per the first equation, then the the equation will turn out as E = h×λν/λ or E = hv.
Means, a photon will have the energy equal to the multiplication of its frequency with planck constant. But, that would imply that photons of different colors must have different energies, and as photons have no rest mass but only momentous energy, that also means that photons of different colors must have different speed too. And, that messes up the whole concept as according to this, being having high frequency, the photons of red light must move faster than other colors, and violet ones slower. But, I do not think that happens in reality.
I do not know where I am wrong. Can you explain how the photons of different colors travel at the same speed?
Thirdly, as far as the question of the Tixie is concerned, i think that I got it right. I may not get the result of the change in the orbit right, but still I got the timing of the starting of the change right. As you also explained, change will start happening exactly after that time that light takes in reaching.
My basic understanding about this was very simple. I visualized that something will start changing for sure from just after that very moment when the chain of photons from the disappeared sun would stop hitting the earth, though I got the net result wrong because I considered the photons also a part of gravity clouds.
Light travels as a 2 dimensional spin wave. The aether has alternate left and right spin which conveys light as both a wave and a DNA shaped spin. The spin is off phase so that the light arrives as a continuous flow. This spin can have a momentum element which increases its intensity according to the strength of the source.
3.Aether spins at the speed of light. Thus, E=MC squared. This makes the equation into a rational and mechanical action. The energy of 2 spinning ethons is released which gives us sunlight and energy.
If the sun were to suddenly disappear the Earth wouldn’t have anything to fall into any more because the sun acts as a black hole attractor. Therefore, the Earth would most likely, immediately, head straight out of the solar system at a 90 degree angle to where the sun once was and veer towards the nearest or closest other star system where it would most likely be swallowed up by that sun in a blaze of glory.
I am sorry to say that all that goes well above my head.
I do not have enough knowledge of science. You can compare me with an average high school student in that regard. So, you have to come down at that level, if you want to convey your explanation.
Several times I have thought to have a thread on photons, but I never seem to be able to get the right picture to depict what I need. I might go ahead and just throw something together anyway.
Science is not beyond playing word games. With the initial relativity equations, if any mass at all got up to the speed of light, its energy would be infinite. With that in mind, they declared that light itself could have no mass. The problem is, that light actually does have inertia and measurable momentum. So they came up with the term “rest mass”, meaning “mass while standing still”. And since light never stands still, “rests”, light can have no “rest mass” (saving their ego). And then they allow photons to have momentum by mentioning its wavelength or frequency in place of any “mass”. The frequency and the mass are merely terms for the amount of energy within (amount of affectance noise). Light doesn’t REALLY have a frequency, merely an “effective” or “virtual” frequency.
That was supposed to only apply to particles.
Well, as I said, photons really do have an extremely small amount of mass (depending on exactly how you define “mass”, which they avoid doing), but a little different than the mass field or a mass particle due to the direction of affectance involved in each. And no one ever said that mass ONLY attracts other mass. So regardless of whether light had any mass at all, they can still propose that light gets attracted to mass.
I have made a few animes to display the behavior of light around mass particles in this thread: Light Fall
Clearly explaining the precise reason that light bends into a gravity field gets tough for me even though the reason itself is pretty simple. It is hard to clearly describe into words and pictures.
First, in RM:AO a photon of light is merely a “puff of affectance” and the color distinctions are merely a reflection of the density of the puff. A higher density puff will be measured as a higher “virtual frequency”, more energy. There isn’t a true wavelength involved, but the more dense puff would depict a shorter “virtual wavelength” (the blues).
Wow…
This reminds me of the Relativity equation screw up that they are teaching. It seems that the Quantum Magi want to keep the masses confused.
λν = c, as units looks like this:
m/1 * (n/s) = n*m/s
except they leave out the n.
The wavelength = meters per one cycle (m / 1 cycle)
The frequency = cycles per second (n-cycles / s)
The speed of light = meters per second (m / s)
meters per 1 cycle [size=85]times [/size]number of cycles (n) per second = number of cycles [size=85]times [/size]meters per second = n * speed => nc (not merely c).
What they are doing is redefining what a “wavelength” is so as to make an energy equation work. Photons are usually measured in eV, electron volts, or in ergs. Any frequency or wavelength reference is arbitrarily assigned so that the energy will reflect experience.
As I said, a photon doesn’t really have a real wavelength. So what they are doing now, it seems, is arbitrarily assigning a wavelength so that the energy equation associated with wavelengths and frequencies will reflect the right amount of energy. A photon is just a puff of energy in the form of affectance noise.
They do.
Emm… yes and no.
All light photons (not all photons refer to light) will travel the exact same speed in an ABSOLUTE vacuum (only). All photons of different energies (colors) will travel at a different speed in real space and through real materials (through affectance densities). That is how light prisms work, by separating the colors due to their different speeds through materials.
Science has talked about the frequencies of light for so long, it is hard for people to think in any other terms. But the truth is that actual light never had frequency associated with it, merely energy density or affectance density. Light is not really like a radio wave.
Lower energy light puffs (photons) will travel through higher density space (dark matter, higher gravity, and materials) faster than higher energy photons. Blue light will bend into a gravity field or material more than red light. That bending is due to it being slowed/retarded.
The reason greater density light will slow more than lower density light is that the density of the ambient affectance and the density of the light affectance add:
Ad = (Bd + Xd) / (1 + Bd * Xd)
Ad = total Affectance density at that point/region.
Bd = amBient affectance density
Xd = affectance density of the object of interest, X (an afflate or photon)
And, v = 1 - Ad
v = velocity of the photon (as a percentage of c00: the speed of light in absolute void).
So the higher that density gets, the more it retards and is retarded by other photons/afflates. Through glass, blue light will travel slightly slower than red light. And this is all related to why we see red-shifting from the stars. The blue light has been very slightly diverted, leaving mostly the red light components.
