Thread: New concept for gravity/light interaction

I would like to propose an alternate theory of the interaction between light and gravity. If you do not like it or think it is bunk that's okay. Never the less alternate theories can be very useful. If anyone wants to comment pro or con have at it. However, I have not come across any information that could be shown as proof for or against this theory.

My view of gravity is as follows: Some property of mass has the effect of warping space-time and gravity is only an effect of warped space-time. The reason I am making that distinction is because I sense for most people, warped space-time and gravity are used interchangeably as the same thing. In my mind they are not the same thing as one is only an effect of the other.

When one reads about the gravity lensing effect on light. I can not believe it because there is no reason why gravity should have any effect on light.

What I am proposing is that light bends as a refracting property of warped space-time and gravity has nothing to do with it. Some of you are probably wanting to know how I might explain black holes. Thats very easy, as light enters the very highly warped space-time on the black hole side of the event horizon it bends into a complete circle and will never be seen again. That is very different than saying that even light cannot escape from a black hole because of super strong gravity.

All other aspects of light work well with this new concept and Einstein's theory of warped space-time/gravity becomes very much more versatile and useful in solving the mysteries of our universe.

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

My view of gravity is as follows: Some property of mass has the effect of warping space-time and gravity is only an effect of warped space-time. The reason I am making that distinction is because I sense for most people, warped space-time and gravity are used interchangeably as the same thing. In my mind they are not the same thing as one is only an effect of the other.
.

I agree with you on the basic aspects of your theory. I would agree that that space-time and gravity are not interchangable but argue that gravity is some property of mass rather it is some element of the space geometry which is affected by mass of the matter present in any location of the space. Gravity is uniform throughout space-time no matter how much or how little mass is present. Space is not empty. Devoid of matter would be more accurate but not devoid of gravity. That would explain why we don't need dark matter or ether. Mass alters the space-time but not the geometry. Basicaly gravity exist independently but mass is required to observ it. You are right that the notion that even light can't escape the black hole is flawed in my opinion. I don't believe that there is matter inside the black hole. Having said that, gravitational lensing is possible because is an optical illusion based on cumputuer calculations rather then observation. Gravity has no substantial effect on light but space-time does. Nothing can follow straight line in space including light but must follow the cuvature of space. Since space has geometry also, the light like all matter is affected by it. Note: Space -time and space-geometry as I'm referring to them here, have two different definition of "space". I'm working on a theory which will explain each definition.

My view of gravity is as follows: Some property of mass has the effect of warping space-time and gravity is only an effect of warped space-time.

I must point out that you are here making a very big error. The ideas of general relativity - the modern theory of gravity, if you wish - have unfortunately been popularised to the point that the subtleties of the subject have been left out completely.

Firstly, it is not so much that space-time is curved. Space and time are not physical objects; space and time does not, to use the words of another forumer, " bend like a fly rod". It is more accurate to say that the observer's measure of space and time (say, by a rigid ruler/scale and a good clock) change in such a way that the object measures a different value of pi; a property unique to curved surfaces, and hence leading naturally to the idea that the object behaves as if it is on a curved surface, for reasons owing to the fact that basic physics prevent an observer from deciding if he/she is in motion relative to another object, or at rest relative to a moving object; if the object did not behave as if it was on a curved surface, it would be possible to conclude that it was not in motion, and the object it is moving relative to is in motion.

I apologise if that was confusing, but it is necessary before this discussion veers off into something approaching pseudoscience. If people wish to discuss general relativity and other related theories, it is more important to know it well enough to avoid blundering into simplicities.

Secondly, your statement that gravity is only an effect of warped space-time is slightly incorrect, although for the purposes of this discussion is more than adequate. It is correct as long as we remember that the effect of gravity cannot exist without space-time. You annot experience the two separately; they are conjoined irrevocably.

When one reads about the gravity lensing effect on light. I can not believe it because there is no reason why gravity should have any effect on light.

I'm afraid you must believe that the gravitational lensing effect of light is correct. Allow me to explain.

According to general relativity, an object cannot tell the difference between experiencing a gravitational force or itself accelerating. To be precise, you can't tell if you are at rest in a changing gravitaitonal field, or actually accelerating; the effects in both cases are the same. It is this relation between the two cases that led Einstein to conclude that objects measure a different value for pi when they are accelerating, and hence observe a different value when in a gravitational field, allowing him to predict the motion of objects in a gravitational field.

Light is observed to bend in an accelerating chamber. It follows, therefore, that light will bend in a gravitational field. That is why you must accdept the effect if you accept the theory.

Time prevents me from answering more.

Originally Posted by Liongold

My view of gravity is as follows: Some property of mass has the effect of warping space-time and gravity is only an effect of warped space-time.

I must point out that you are here making a very big error. The ideas of general relativity - the modern theory of gravity, if you wish - have unfortunately been popularised to the point that the subtleties of the subject have been left out completely.

Firstly, it is not so much that space-time is curved. Space and time are not physical objects; space and time does not, to use the words of another forumer, " bend like a fly rod". It is more accurate to say that the observer's measure of space and time (say, by a rigid ruler/scale and a good clock) change in such a way that the object measures a different value of pi; a property unique to curved surfaces, and hence leading naturally to the idea that the object behaves as if it is on a curved surface, for reasons owing to the fact that basic physics prevent an observer from deciding if he/she is in motion relative to another object, or at rest relative to a moving object; if the object did not behave as if it was on a curved surface, it would be possible to conclude that it was not in motion, and the object it is moving relative to is in motion.

I apologise if that was confusing, but it is necessary before this discussion veers off into something approaching pseudoscience. If people wish to discuss general relativity and other related theories, it is more important to know it well enough to avoid blundering into simplicities.

Secondly, your statement that gravity is only an effect of warped space-time is slightly incorrect, although for the purposes of this discussion is more than adequate. It is correct as long as we remember that the effect of gravity cannot exist without space-time. You annot experience the two separately; they are conjoined irrevocably.

When one reads about the gravity lensing effect on light. I can not believe it because there is no reason why gravity should have any effect on light.

I'm afraid you must believe that the gravitational lensing effect of light is correct. Allow me to explain.

According to general relativity, an object cannot tell the difference between experiencing a gravitational force or itself accelerating. To be precise, you can't tell if you are at rest in a changing gravitaitonal field, or actually accelerating; the effects in both cases are the same. It is this relation between the two cases that led Einstein to conclude that objects measure a different value for pi when they are accelerating, and hence observe a different value when in a gravitational field, allowing him to predict the motion of objects in a gravitational field.

Light is observed to bend in an accelerating chamber. It follows, therefore, that light will bend in a gravitational field. That is why you must accdept the effect if you accept the theory.

Time prevents me from answering more.

Nice post, you made some very good points. However, you talk about warped space-time as if I was talking about a curved surface. I do not visualize it as a curved surface. I view it as having properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality. By definition the speed of light is a constant in space-time. If as new research suggest that photons might have some infinitesimal amount of mass, then they can never quite reach the speed of light. That in and of itself sound like an oxymoron. So is the speed of light to become an outdated term? Should it be called something else?

I am also very interested in tachyons and their very interesting properties. Can they in fact exceed the speed of light as some have suggested or do they utilize some property of space-time yet to discovered by us? I am open to suggestions here.

Also, a theory is what it is, a tool to advance out understanding and like a good software program it usually gets better over time until it gets so good that it's not a theory anymore or it's proved wrong in light of a new and better theory. By definition a theory is not carved in stone even though they are treated that way sometime.

Originally Posted by varadinum

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

My view of gravity is as follows: Some property of mass has the effect of warping space-time and gravity is only an effect of warped space-time. The reason I am making that distinction is because I sense for most people, warped space-time and gravity are used interchangeably as the same thing. In my mind they are not the same thing as one is only an effect of the other.
.

I agree with you on the basic aspects of your theory. I would agree that that space-time and gravity are not interchangable but argue that gravity is some property of mass rather it is some element of the space geometry which is affected by mass of the matter present in any location of the space. Gravity is uniform throughout space-time no matter how much or how little mass is present. Space is not empty. Devoid of matter would be more accurate but not devoid of gravity. That would explain why we don't need dark matter or ether. Mass alters the space-time but not the geometry. Basicaly gravity exist independently but mass is required to observ it. You are right that the notion that even light can't escape the black hole is flawed in my opinion. I don't believe that there is matter inside the black hole. Having said that, gravitational lensing is possible because is an optical illusion based on cumputuer calculations rather then observation. Gravity has no substantial effect on light but space-time does. Nothing can follow straight line in space including light but must follow the cuvature of space. Since space has geometry also, the light like all matter is affected by it. Note: Space -time and space-geometry as I'm referring to them here, have two different definition of "space". I'm working on a theory which will explain each definition.

Interesting concept. I look forward to seeing your development of it into a more complete theory.

Nice post, you made some very good points.

Thank you.

However, you talk about warped space-time as if I was talking about a curved surface. I do not visualize it as a curved surface. I view it as having properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality.

Once again you are falling into the error I am talking about. If you will look at your statement, you seem to believe that space-time are actual real, physical things, as I infer from your statement that they "have properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality".

Please understand that space-time are not real, physical things that can actually affect us; they are merely concepts which, if we treat rigorously, appear different for different observers, as relativity shows.

There is no actual defintion of time either, as Wikipedia is only too eager to show; Einstein himself was forced to resort to the definition that time can be measured by changes in information (e.g. information carried by light signals, which, being the fastest carriers of information, are then treated exclusively in the theory of relativity with regard to time). And "space" here is better replaced with the word "distance"; the "space" Einstein referred to was a simple allusion to an ordinary three-dimensional Cartesian system (which I assume you are familiar with), within which distances are measured.

Relativity deals only with measurements between these quantities; it tells us that, in order to allow normal physical laws to work, it is necessary to deal with changes induced in the measurement of these qualities, based on your frame of reference.

In layman terms, relativity simply says that you will measure things differently based on how fast you are going. You will measure, for example, time to be different if you are moving at a very fast speed, close to the speed of light; this is not because whatever quantity we choose to call time has changed, but merely because our method of measurement is forced to change (Why? Because otherwise we would be able to tell if we are actually in motion or at rest, rather than relatively in motion; something relativity is honour-bound to prevent).

In short, I simply want to dissuade you of the notion that space-time has properties. Whatever changes in any frame of reference (read: point of view) is simply because your measurement is forced to change to accomodate physical laws. As I said, space-time does not slow down, nor does it curve; it is only your clock that is forced to slow down, and your rigid rod forced to contract that gives you the impression that space-time is curved (I will explain this in more detail, if you wish; the actual thought experiment that leads us to conclude that accelerating bodies measure a different value of pi is a uniquely beautiful one). In actual reality, space-time are just abstract concepts, and hence are devoid of any properties except those implied by other, real concepts. It makes no sense, then, to talk of "curved" space-time as if they have properties different from "normal" space-time, whatever that might mean.

If as new research suggest that photons might have some infinitesimal amount of mass, then they can never quite reach the speed of light.

Which is precisely why no experiment ever has managed to detect any change in the speed of light. Always, it has been measured to be the same; the Michelson - Morley experiment rather dramatically proved this, to the dismay of the ether-loving theorists. And since its speed is always measured to be the same, it follows logically that photons can never have an infinitesimal amount of mass; ignoring the fact that this would damage the edifice of relativity forever (whose predictions have never once been shown to be in error, except perhaps in the extenuating circumstances of spiral galaxies), this constancy of speed implies that no photons have any mass; otherwise there would be experiments which show that the speed of light is smaller than its actual value.

Mind you, there are physicists who have proceeded under the assumption that the speed of light is not always constant, and have succeeded in developing a theory (called deformed special relativity or doubly special relativity; DSR, in short, if you are interested) that has so far proved to be remarkably consistent, and even makes an experimental prediction, which the Auger experiment (do not ask me the details of the result; I have not bothered to check it) should confirm.

By definition the speed of light is a constant in space-time.

Actually, it is by the postulates of relativity, rather than its definition, which does include space-time at all.

I am also very interested in tachyons and their very interesting properties. Can they in fact exceed the speed of light as some have suggested or do they utilize some property of space-time yet to discovered by us?

Again, space and time are abstract concepts; it is wrong to assume that they have properties unknown to us when they are entirely abstract, and are certainly not physical objects. Particles do not utilise the properties of space-time, either, nor does anything else really do, actually; this is good since there are no properties of space-time that actually exist.

Moreover, tachyons, by definition, are particles that travel faster than photons. They are also particles that have never been observed in nature, and any theory that includes tachyons is considered suspect in any physics colloqium; a theory actually suggesting that tachyons exist (unless offering, of course, some experimental method of verification) is unlikely to ever be published in any scientific journal.

Theory states, quite simply, that tachyons do not exist; otherwise relativity would be wrong, which has not, as I said before, ever been observed. Experiment demonstrates that they are not observed. The two form the core of science, and I think it is unlikely that tachyons exist.

Also, a theory is what it is, a tool to advance out understanding and like a good software program it usually gets better over time until it gets so good that it's not a theory anymore or it's proved wrong in light of a new and better theory. By definition a theory is not carved in stone even though they are treated that way sometime.

A theory which has proved its worth by offering predictions that are confirmed by experiment, not once but several times over, is almost always likely to be the right theory. While I accept that they are not carved in stone, I would also like to point out that any subsequent theory must build on the previous theory, rather than discard it completely; otherwise one must find new explanations and offer the same predictions as those explained by the previous theory - a tedious process and moreover often destined to be inconsistent. There is no comprehensive theory of science that has ever been overturned entirely in the light of a new development, and I would beg you not to attempt to do this with general relativity.

Further, any new theory which arises is often only necessary when the previous theory is unable to acocunt for a certain detail. While general relativity has been shown to be slightly flawed by recent observations in spiral galaxies, I would be inclined to accept alternative proposals for a theory which accounts for that discrepancy. Your theory, however, is only challenging an accepted theory of science on a region it has held dominion over for well over ninety years, with extremely successful predictions, and on an illogical basis. I apologise for such harsh words, but they must be said; it is wrong to begin with assumptions, and it is moreover wrong to build on them without first proving them clearly and precisely, and offering at least some evidence to show that they are, indeed, far more credible than previous facts.

Thats very easy, as light enters the very highly warped space-time on the black hole side of the event horizon it bends into a complete circle and will never be seen again. That is very different than saying that even light cannot escape from a black hole because of super strong gravity.

Yes, but the predictions are the same, are they not? How can we then tell which is right and which isn't?

Originally Posted by Liongold

There is no actual defintion of time either, as Wikipedia is only too eager to show; Einstein himself was forced to resort to the definition that time can be measured by changes in information (e.g. information carried by light signals, which, being the fastest carriers of information, are then treated exclusively in the theory of relativity with regard to time).

Einstein was not forced by the definition of information's speed. He just made a choice of which constant to use as a reference point. In the Galilean space-time this not apply. It does not mean that Einstein was wrong. He was not comfortable with quantum mechanics not because he didn't understand it but because he did. He saw that the measured quantum properties make his theory incomplete. He could not merge the two, neither anyone else at this point. He felt that his equation: E=mc^2 needs another constant. I'm sure you understand why he called this the biggest blunder of his life. He could not introduce it because it would contradict his own predictions but he saw the treat from QM. On the end he couldn't finish his theory but it doesn't make him less of a genius.
There was an experiment conducted in 2000 in a NJ lab by scientists, which managed to "show" the speed of light to be 310 times the current value. I include the link here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in216905.shtml
There are scientists who are skeptical of the findings. I concur in my opinion that the results are not necessarily mean that the light can propagate at faster speeds. There are possible other explanations. Which brings me back to the question in your quote about the carriers of information speed. I still think that the speed limit of light is constant but the observed speed is limited to the fractal space-time we call observable.
In my opinion information conservation in the universe is just as important as energy conservation. I believe that the information in the universe is widely available but there are rules as how information can be connected. This would explain why we can't travel back in time although the information packets can be reproduced at the initial state the outcome tend to be random but limited by the rules. Also it would hint as why QM at the initial state is ruled by statistics, when matter is created out of energy. It's just a thought but I think would fit nicely in Einstein's formula as a constant with no predetermined numeric value. The universe would be possible in the present form, only as stable(concrete) solutions of any equation. So, reading the above article; I'm intrigued by the question on the end of it:
"The interesting thing is how did they manage to produce light that looks exactly like something that didn't get there yet?"

Einstein was not forced by the definition of information's speed. He just made a choice of which constant to use as a reference point. In the Galilean space-time this not apply. It does not mean that Einstein was wrong

Nor am I suggesting that he was.

He was not comfortable with quantum mechanics not because he didn't understand it but because he did. He saw that the measured quantum properties make his theory incomplete.

What has quantum mechanics to do with special relativity? It was quantum mechanics that was constrained by the limits of special relativity, and no quantum effect has ever once affected the edifice of special relativity.

I understand what you mean if you meant general relativity, but special relativity has very little to do with quantum mechanics, unless you mean relativistic quantum mechanics.

He felt that his equation: E=mc^2 needs another constant. I'm sure you understand why he called this the biggest blunder of his life.

If I might, I think you are confusing the cosmological constant with the energy-mass equivalence. Einstein actually felt that he required a new constant that cancelled out the expansion of the universe, as general relativity predicted. The cosmological constant is what he called the biggest blunder of his life. He never did tamper with his energy-mass equivalence equation.

There are possible other explanations. Which brings me back to the question in your quote about the carriers of information speed.

I did not ask a question about the "carriers of information speed". Could you please clarify?

Originally Posted by Liongold

Nice post, you made some very good points.

Thank you.

However, you talk about warped space-time as if I was talking about a curved surface. I do not visualize it as a curved surface. I view it as having properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality.

Once again you are falling into the error I am talking about. If you will look at your statement, you seem to believe that space-time are actual real, physical things, as I infer from your statement that they "have properties that are different than normal space-time and that it's very possible we don't know what they all are or what all the effects they have on our reality".

Please understand that space-time are not real, physical things that can actually affect us; they are merely concepts which, if we treat rigorously, appear different for different observers, as relativity shows.

There is no actual defintion of time either, as Wikipedia is only too eager to show; Einstein himself was forced to resort to the definition that time can be measured by changes in information (e.g. information carried by light signals, which, being the fastest carriers of information, are then treated exclusively in the theory of relativity with regard to time). And "space" here is better replaced with the word "distance"; the "space" Einstein referred to was a simple allusion to an ordinary three-dimensional Cartesian system (which I assume you are familiar with), within which distances are measured.

Relativity deals only with measurements between these quantities; it tells us that, in order to allow normal physical laws to work, it is necessary to deal with changes induced in the measurement of these qualities, based on your frame of reference.

In layman terms, relativity simply says that you will measure things differently based on how fast you are going. You will measure, for example, time to be different if you are moving at a very fast speed, close to the speed of light; this is not because whatever quantity we choose to call time has changed, but merely because our method of measurement is forced to change (Why? Because otherwise we would be able to tell if we are actually in motion or at rest, rather than relatively in motion; something relativity is honour-bound to prevent).

In short, I simply want to dissuade you of the notion that space-time has properties. Whatever changes in any frame of reference (read: point of view) is simply because your measurement is forced to change to accomodate physical laws. As I said, space-time does not slow down, nor does it curve; it is only your clock that is forced to slow down, and your rigid rod forced to contract that gives you the impression that space-time is curved (I will explain this in more detail, if you wish; the actual thought experiment that leads us to conclude that accelerating bodies measure a different value of pi is a uniquely beautiful one). In actual reality, space-time are just abstract concepts, and hence are devoid of any properties except those implied by other, real concepts. It makes no sense, then, to talk of "curved" space-time as if they have properties different from "normal" space-time, whatever that might mean.

If as new research suggest that photons might have some infinitesimal amount of mass, then they can never quite reach the speed of light.

Which is precisely why no experiment ever has managed to detect any change in the speed of light. Always, it has been measured to be the same; the Michelson - Morley experiment rather dramatically proved this, to the dismay of the ether-loving theorists. And since its speed is always measured to be the same, it follows logically that photons can never have an infinitesimal amount of mass; ignoring the fact that this would damage the edifice of relativity forever (whose predictions have never once been shown to be in error, except perhaps in the extenuating circumstances of spiral galaxies), this constancy of speed implies that no photons have any mass; otherwise there would be experiments which show that the speed of light is smaller than its actual value.

Mind you, there are physicists who have proceeded under the assumption that the speed of light is not always constant, and have succeeded in developing a theory (called deformed special relativity or doubly special relativity; DSR, in short, if you are interested) that has so far proved to be remarkably consistent, and even makes an experimental prediction, which the Auger experiment (do not ask me the details of the result; I have not bothered to check it) should confirm.

By definition the speed of light is a constant in space-time.

Actually, it is by the postulates of relativity, rather than its definition, which does include space-time at all.

I am also very interested in tachyons and their very interesting properties. Can they in fact exceed the speed of light as some have suggested or do they utilize some property of space-time yet to discovered by us?

Again, space and time are abstract concepts; it is wrong to assume that they have properties unknown to us when they are entirely abstract, and are certainly not physical objects. Particles do not utilise the properties of space-time, either, nor does anything else really do, actually; this is good since there are no properties of space-time that actually exist.

Moreover, tachyons, by definition, are particles that travel faster than photons. They are also particles that have never been observed in nature, and any theory that includes tachyons is considered suspect in any physics colloqium; a theory actually suggesting that tachyons exist (unless offering, of course, some experimental method of verification) is unlikely to ever be published in any scientific journal.

Theory states, quite simply, that tachyons do not exist; otherwise relativity would be wrong, which has not, as I said before, ever been observed. Experiment demonstrates that they are not observed. The two form the core of science, and I think it is unlikely that tachyons exist.

Also, a theory is what it is, a tool to advance out understanding and like a good software program it usually gets better over time until it gets so good that it's not a theory anymore or it's proved wrong in light of a new and better theory. By definition a theory is not carved in stone even though they are treated that way sometime.

A theory which has proved its worth by offering predictions that are confirmed by experiment, not once but several times over, is almost always likely to be the right theory. While I accept that they are not carved in stone, I would also like to point out that any subsequent theory must build on the previous theory, rather than discard it completely; otherwise one must find new explanations and offer the same predictions as those explained by the previous theory - a tedious process and moreover often destined to be inconsistent. There is no comprehensive theory of science that has ever been overturned entirely in the light of a new development, and I would beg you not to attempt to do this with general relativity.

Further, any new theory which arises is often only necessary when the previous theory is unable to acocunt for a certain detail. While general relativity has been shown to be slightly flawed by recent observations in spiral galaxies, I would be inclined to accept alternative proposals for a theory which accounts for that discrepancy. Your theory, however, is only challenging an accepted theory of science on a region it has held dominion over for well over ninety years, with extremely successful predictions, and on an illogical basis. I apologise for such harsh words, but they must be said; it is wrong to begin with assumptions, and it is moreover wrong to build on them without first proving them clearly and precisely, and offering at least some evidence to show that they are, indeed, far more credible than previous facts.

Thats very easy, as light enters the very highly warped space-time on the black hole side of the event horizon it bends into a complete circle and will never be seen again. That is very different than saying that even light cannot escape from a black hole because of super strong gravity.

Yes, but the predictions are the same, are they not? How can we then tell which is right and which isn't?

First, Thanks for the time and detail of your response. I agree with most of what you said and I surely don't want to challenge relativity. For it has been one of the greatest theories of all time and has a very distinguished track recored of enhancing our understanding of reality. However, I consider it a work still in progress. Also you are right about assumptions. Again however, they can be very useful when you want to probe around the limits of any theory. After all you have to be able to visualize something before you can test it or look for observations that might support it. Example: At one time someone visualized a round Earth. It was at the time a theory that over time became a fact. Maybe not the best example, but the point is that if the current standard BB model of our universe is incorrect as I believe it is. Then much of our talent will be used trying to make very real observations fit into it.

From our current state of understanding it looks very dubious that we will ever be able to travel to the stars and colonize new planets. I for one don't want to accept that we are stuck here until we go extinct like the stupid dinosaurs. So I have to believe there is a way and we will find it before something happens that puts us in a position of using all of our resources just to stay alive. It's only an assumption that we will be able to do it, but it's a very important assumption, for without it what's the point of trying to advance our understanding?

However, I consider it a work still in progress.

How so? More precisely, could you give me one instance where you consider relativity to be incomplete?

Also you are right about assumptions. Again however, they can be very useful when you want to probe around the limits of any theory.

Quite true. But then surely there should be some logical basis for the assumptions? I am willing to accept a slight misconception, but you cannot then proceed with that misconception.

Example: At one time someone visualized a round Earth. It was at the time a theory that over time became a fact.

The Greeks knew the Earth was round; there never was any question about it in the years before the Dark Ages, and never has since that time. Forgive me for that slight nitpick; I have a (rather annoying) habit of picking up trivial details and playing with them. The rest of your statement is quite true.

Yet I must point out that all these theories were motivated because of error with observations. You cannot explain why a ship appears mast first and then the hull over the horizon rather than all at once with a flat Earth. Likewise, most real theories which aim to do better than the previous one arise primarily because the current theory is unable to explain certain aspects of reality.

Maybe not the best example, but the point is that if the current standard BB model of our universe is incorrect as I believe it is. Then much of our talent will be used trying to make very real observations fit into it.

Why do you believe that the Big Bang model is incorrect? It certainly has explanatory power. In fact, Hawking and Penrose together proved a major part of the Big Bang theory, not with a physical theory but mathematically - and it is impossible to argue with mathematical logic.

Why do you believe that the Big Bang model is incorrect? It certainly has explanatory power. In fact, Hawking and Penrose together proved a major part of the Big Bang theory, not with a physical theory but mathematically - and it is impossible to argue with mathematical logic.

That's the problem with mathematical logic. Good looking math may have nothing to do with our reality as we know it, but it is hard to argue against it. I believe math can be produced that looks good on the surface to support a flawed premise. I do remember seeing many examples of that, but that was some time ago. So at the moment I can't point to an example for you. However I do have another posting you might find very interesting. It is still a rough draft work in progress of a very different view of the BB. I do have a problem believing all space and time started with the BB, so I took what was known about the universe and built a new model that I believe works much better and I started developing it in a semi-story format for easy reading. If nothing else the BB should have a credible competitor. The model I have built could very much use more brain power tweaking and improving it, but I will be satisfied watching as new data, observations and information are made available to the public. I've already posted 4 discoveries that I consider to be supporting my view of the universe.

The link below will take you to the posting and at the very least you will be entertained.


http://thescienceforum.com/viewtopic...=186993#186993

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

What I am proposing is that light bends as a refracting property of warped space-time and gravity has nothing to do with it. Some of you are probably wanting to know how I might explain black holes. Thats very easy, as light enters the very highly warped space-time on the black hole side of the event horizon it bends into a complete circle and will never be seen again. That is very different than saying that even light cannot escape from a black hole because of super strong gravity.

.

What about a beam of light emitted directly from the center of a black hole. How does the light choose whether it will curve to the left or the right?

Or more generally: how do you describe gravitational redshift? If I'm on the Moon, and you shoot a laser beam directly at me from Earth, the light will be slightly more red when it reaches me, because it's traveling from the Earth's higher gravity to the Moon's lower gravity. It's kind of confusing to say that it curved along the way, because it's following a path that's perfectly perpendicular to the gravitational field.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

What I am proposing is that light bends as a refracting property of warped space-time and gravity has nothing to do with it. Some of you are probably wanting to know how I might explain black holes. Thats very easy, as light enters the very highly warped space-time on the black hole side of the event horizon it bends into a complete circle and will never be seen again. That is very different than saying that even light cannot escape from a black hole because of super strong gravity.

.

What about a beam of light emitted directly from the center of a black hole. How does the light choose whether it will curve to the left or the right?

Or more generally: how do you describe gravitational redshift? If I'm on the Moon, and you shoot a laser beam directly at me from Earth, the light will be slightly more red when it reaches me, because it's traveling from the Earth's higher gravity to the Moon's lower gravity. It's kind of confusing to say that it curved along the way, because it's following a path that's perfectly perpendicular to the gravitational field.

First question: I would question if a black hole (the surface of the actual mass) could even be a source of photons. However, like much about black hole physics I will probably never know for sure.

Second Question: I think any effect to the red shifting of light has more to do with changes in time that has been shown to change with distance from a gravitational source and the greater the gravitational source the stronger that effect will be. That being the case I would suggest the refracting properties of warped space-time that I suggested might be a possible cause of bending light would not seem to even come into play with your question.