Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: There is no gravitational blueshift

  1. #1 There is no gravitational blueshift 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    40
    Considering speed of light c is constant in vacuum (space) I skip all doppler effect speculation, referring only to a frame at speed c following the one photon in question. As I see it light can not accelerate or decelerate (in vacuum), only bend as follows due to gravity.

    A photon is "flying" at its pace c past numerous planets, suns and galaxies. one particular sun is coming up slightly beneath its direction along a line d. The photons trajectory goes beneath d in a slightly curved line l at a perpendicular distance (delta)r to d at a distance r from the suns midpoint. Closest r is skimming the suns surface at its radius distance R. The dragging force toward the suns mid point F=4*h/(pi*s^2) where h is the standard gravitation parameter of this sun. s is the distance between the photon and suns midpoint. Assuming l linear (delta)r=0 and r*sin(alpha)=0 give values better than 4 number accuracy and thereby s^2=l^2+r^2.Gained gravitation induced speed in perpendicular direction v=a*t=INT(-inf to 0)4*h/(pi*(l^3+r^2))dt. Since speed in l direction is c we get time t=l/c, giving Integral 4*h/(pi*((t*c)^2+r^2))) dt and finally v=pi/2*(4*h/(pi*c*r)) = 2*h/(c*r) =v Of the original "amplitudes" part are stretched (c-v)/(lambda) and part v/(lambda) are by length in perpendicular direction. The angle to which the photon trajectory l has "curved" is (alpha)=2*arcsin(v/(c-v)) for the whole "flyby", minus infinity to 0 to plus infinity =2. Color change f-(delta)f frequency is (delta)f=-2*f*v/c. The redshift color change is coupled to h and r not original color. Redshift z=2*v/c and energy loss (delta)E=(delta)f*hi, where hi is Planck constant. Wavelength elongation is wavelength dependent
    (delta)(lanbda)=(lambda)*c/(c-2*v)-(lambda) =(lambda)*(c/(c-2*v)-1)

    The photon keep flying past suns galaxies and smaller till after some 13 billion years it is not even red anymore, it is just a "background" of its radiant youth, and eventually c/(lambda)-(SIGMA)(delta)f=0

    August 20.2022 Timo Moilanen
    PS! The universe do not expand (at least no so much)
    Aug 23. The difference compared to a particle (probe) is that I do not allow the photon to accelerate (blueshift) but use all work a*s to perpendicular acceleration instead of just the sin(beta) part, (beta)=angle between trajectory l and direction to sun midpoint. This about doubles the bending (alpha) and avoids charging the photon "in mid flight", and also avoid decelerating after passing (redshift). Inertia free photon, all Work gone to deflection. And energy not relative to v^2 but v/c*hi.
    Aug24. Sorry about my mess with color an frequency, here f,(alpha) for the apparent (not refracted) bent light.
    observed wavelength =original wavelength *c/(c-2v)
    observed frequency = original frequency *(c-2v)/c
    Edit.4.9-22 The potential v need to be = or > than (lambda) at the flyby because the photon can not give other than n*hi quants of energy, otherwise it flyes by "unharmed". This will lead to shattering of long wavelength light to rings that are bent less les tan the shorter. The rings are not monochromatic but one (lambda) different in color than the next ring and so on. These rings are also narrow (plumes) because the distance r collect these 1.2.3..n bent photons as the distance shortens to the mass.


    Last edited by Timo Moilanen; September 4th, 2022 at 02:43 PM. Reason: correction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen View Post
    Considering speed of light c is constant in vacuum (space) I skip all doppler effect speculation, referring only to a frame at speed c following the one photon in question. As I see it light can not accelerate or decelerate (in vacuum), only bend as follows due to gravity.

    A photon is "flying" at its pace c past numerous planets, suns and galaxies. one particular sun is coming up slightly beneath its direction along a line d. The photons trajectory goes beneath d in a slightly curved line l at a perpendicular distance (delta)r to d at a distance r from the suns midpoint. Closest r is skimming the suns surface at its radius distance R. The dragging force toward the suns mid point F=4*h/(pi*s^2) where h is the standard gravitation parameter of this sun. s is the distance between the photon and suns midpoint. Assuming l linear (delta)r=0 and r*sin(alpha)=0 give values better than 4 number accuracy and thereby s^2=l^2+r^2.Gained gravitation induced speed in perpendicular direction v=a*t=INT(-inf to 0)4*h/(pi*(l^3+r^2))dt. Since speed in l direction is c we get time t=l/c, giving Integral 4*h/(pi*((t*c)^2+r^2))) dt and finally v=pi/2*(4*h/(pi*c*r)) = 2*h/(c*r) =v Of the original "amplitudes" part are stretched (c-v)/(lambda) and part v/(lambda) are by length in perpendicular direction. The angle to which the photon trajectory l has "curved" is (alpha)=2*arcsin(v/(c-v)) for the whole "flyby", minus infinity to 0 to plus infinity =2. Color change f-(delta)f frequency is (delta)f=1/c-2/(c-v). The redshift color change is coupled to h and r not original color. Redshift z=2*v/c and energy loss (delta)E=(delta)f*hi, where hi is Planck constant. Wavelength elongation is wavelength dependent (delta)(lanbda)=c/(c/(lambda)-(delta)f)-(lambda).

    The photon keep flying past suns galaxies and smaller till after some 13 billion years it is not even red anymore, it is just a "background" of its radiant youth, and eventually c/(lambda)-(SIGMA)(delta)f=0

    August 20.2022 Timo Moilanen
    PS! The universe do not expand (at least no so much)
    This is silly. There is no frame of reference in which light is stationary, because it always moves at c in any frame of reference. So a photon has no reference frame, by definition.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    40
    I'm sorry but now there is, call it linear frame dragging. There is no mass in the frame but it interact with mass anyhow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen View Post
    I'm sorry but now there is, call it linear frame dragging. There is no mass in the frame but it interact with mass anyhow.
    Ballocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,750
    One can create a coordinate system in which the four axes are lightlike, but this would not be a Minkowskian coordinate system, nor can it be got to from a Minkowskian coordinate system using a Lorentz transformation. Thus, Special Relativity cannot be applied in the usual way. That the speed of light is the same for all observers would indicate that there are problems with a trajectory of light being a frame of reference.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    40
    My calculation (theory) is not relativistic and essentially two dimensional. "Line" d=c*t and any perpendicular direction distance r. I am ignoring that v (a real speed this time) should be *cos(alpha) and assuming c is far enough(about=infinite) from a orbital speed vo=(h/r)^0,5 (event horizon). I also assume "suns" rigid point masses, that work for photons when equivalence principle is applied in contrast to satellite orbits. The math need not be more exact than the input values.
    Last edited by Timo Moilanen; August 22nd, 2022 at 11:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    55
    Blue shift isn't caused by a photon accelerating. If anything it is decelerating.

    The closer you get to the center of an object with lots of gravity, the more time slows down. Imagine a bunch of cars, like say 20 cars driving down an area of road where a 80 kmph zone changes to a 60 kmph zone. The car in front slows down to 60 kmph, but the car behind it is still going 80 kmph. Consequently, the second car gets closer to the front car. Then the second car slows to 60 kmph, but for a moment the third car is still going 80 kmph.......... etc...

    The cars get closer together. Remember the front and rear of a light wave are also spatially separated. So if the front of the wave enters a region of space wherein time itself is moving slower, but the back of the wave is still in a region where time moves faster, they're going to get closer together as they pass through that junction.

    Saying time moves slower and saying the speed of light is slower, are the same thing. C is invariant to a local observer, but can be different for non-local observers, if you don't adjust for relativistic effects of time and space distortion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    40
    My view is that speed of light is constant in vacuum of any gravitational field, and the slowdown caused by physically close material like in prisms inflict refraction of light due to speed differences of "colors" and vice versa.(the original direction speed is the same but the route is longer) These "refractions" are propelled from electromagnetic interaction whereas "cosmic" bending is due to gravitation, and by my understanding any refraction is not obvious. This mean a strong gravitational field make the frequency slower for as long the photon stays in the field. The color get redder faster on earth than in a satellite in orbit. "Amplitudes" are lost in corresponding amount, otherwise the "very red" faint glow from far suns would be really slow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Summary of non relativistic gravitational bending of light and dissipated photon energy. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    40
    The perpendicular speed v=2*h/(c*r), where h=v(orbit)^2*r(orbit) is identic to mainstream "standard gravitational parameter" (mu). Using mainstream units formulas are: perpendicular speed v=2*(mu)/(r*c) where r=distance to mass center, c=speed of light. The bend angle (arcseconds) (alpha)=2*arcsin(v/(c-v))*3600sec/deg. Redshift z=2*v/c, "lost" frequency (delta)f=f*(2*v-c)/c where f is frequency of the bent color. Dissipated energy (delta)E=f*hi*(-2*v)/c where hi is Planck constant.
    Ex. in mainstream mass. Sun (mu)=1,327*10^20 m3/s2 , r=696*10^6m and color of (fire)(lambda)= 589*10^-9m=> v=2*1,327*10^20/(299792458*696*10^6) =1272 m/s , z=*+1272/29979245= 8,49*10^-6 , f=c/(lambda)=299792458/589/10^-9=5,09*10^14 Hz .The bend angle (alpha)=2*arcsin(1272/299792458-1272)*3600=1,75 arcsec. And dissipated energy per photon (delta)E=5,09*10^14*6,626*10^-34*(-2*1272)/299792458 = 2,86*10^-24 J/photon
    Same ex. in my "Real mass". Due to yet to be condoned fact orbited bodies need to have the mass Mi=1,132*M (mains) With exact parameters v=Mi*mn*pi*c/(4*r) , where mn= mass of nucleon=1,671*10^-27kg. Mainstream mass of sun M=1,988*10^30kg => Mi=1,132*1,988*10^30=2,25*10^30kg. This give v= 2,25*10^30*1,671*10^-27*299792458*3,1415926/(4*696*10^6)=1272 m/s which give same values till my corrected Planck constant 6,22*10^-34 Js and (delta)E= 2,69*10^-24Ji (mass coupled Joule)
    This non relativistic bending of light do not leave much margin for relativistic improvement.
    30.9-22 Timo Moilanen
    Last edited by Timo Moilanen; November 16th, 2022 at 11:16 PM. Reason: math. typo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,750
    I think that it would be fairly easy to test whether or not light loses energy by simply being in a gravitational field by multiple reflections of light between a pair of mirrors, investigating the interference between the reflected and non-reflected beams. Any loss of energy, resulting in a change of frequency of the reflected beam relative to the non-reflected beam, would be detected by the presence of a modulation of the combined beams.

    I think such an effect would have been detected by now if it exists, even if no explicit test has been performed.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I think that it would be fairly easy to test whether or not light loses energy by simply being in a gravitational field by multiple reflections of light between a pair of mirrors, investigating the interference between the reflected and non-reflected beams. Any loss of energy, resulting in a change of frequency of the reflected beam relative to the non-reflected beam, would be detected by the presence of a modulation of the combined beams.

    I think such an effect would have been detected by now if it exists, even if no explicit test has been performed.
    I to think it is quite easily done by modern equipment, especially if the results are not ruled out beforehand. When a photon has lost energy any explanation have done coz everyone know light do not deteriorate. Which it probably don't do spontaneously, but what since earths gravity seem to be quite significant after all. I think it would be worth while checking where the energy from bending come from (it can not be teleported from the mass). Still using a "framed" photon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Blueshift question
    By bill alsept in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 12th, 2013, 09:56 PM
  2. Redshift and Blueshift and who is going where?
    By edastley1234 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2011, 02:54 AM
  3. Gravitational wave
    By basim in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 8th, 2008, 12:16 AM
  4. The gravitational constant
    By JerryG38 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 4th, 2008, 05:30 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •