# Thread: Photon decay when bending in a gravitation field

1. A photon is influenced of all gravitation gtot from every direction and the proportion of time * acceleration =v bend in the direction of strongest sum of field. This mean the deviation is much bigger than a hypothetic materia particle, even tough the magnitude is same. Since all colors bend equally (no dispersion), it follows that bending use a proportion of the photons energy (color). When passing a celestial body (ies) a perpendicular speed v=(sigma)g*t iis added depending on a body of gravitational constant µ and closest fly by distance r as follows v=2*µ/(c*r) where c is speed of light. The angle of curving (from - infinity to +infinity) a=arcsin(v/(c-v)). Electromagnetic energy transformed to kinetic momentum E*c is (delta)E/E=2*v/c where E=c*hi/(lambda). hi is my (indifferent) Planck constant 6,22*10^-34 Js and (lambda) the wavelength (color). The "lost" energy(decay) (delta)E=4*µ*hi/(c*r*(lambda)). The energy is "lost" quant by quant n*hi=2*v/(lambda), and the bend is stepped n steps, for weak gravity/long wavelength even distinguishable. Total redshift z is the sum of 4*µ/(c^2*r) regardless of direction.
Calculation ex. The volume of a r=13,5*10^9 ly universe can fit 2,2*10^12 galaxies 3,3*10^6 ly apart. Looking trough a r=13*10^9 ly and 13*10^9 ly long cylinder , it is having 1,06*10^12 galaxies of 1,2*10^31 m3/s2 (90 billion sun masses ). Randomly dispersed average distance from centerline is 8,2*10^25m giving average of 500 simulated z=8,6*10¨-12 times 1,06*10^12 give redshift about 9. Reminding me of something I've read. The distances r,l,d are assumed but their ratio hold.
For shorter stints or distances s=c/t the redshift is z=gtot*t/c where gtot is sum of all gravitation from all directions. Using 21.century celestial masses Mi that are 1,13 times mainstream masses and mn mass of nucleon 1,671*10^-27kg
Formulas can be written (delta)E/E=Mi*mn*c*t/(2*r¨2) and (delta)E/t=Mi*mn*c^2/(2*r¨2*(lambda)) =gtot*hi/(lambda). Close to planets gtot values are very different from classic g (mainstream). Here a few picked values from earth altitudes for using in calculating photon decay onboard satellites.
Altitude over sea level 0km 15,92m/s2 10km 15,82m/s2 20km15,73m/s2 50km15,48m/s2 100km15,11m/s2 200km14,45m/s2 300km13,86m/s2 400km13,32m/s2 500km12,82m/s2 1000km10,77m/s2 2000km8,02m/s2 5000km4,12m/s2 10000km1,936m/s2 20000km0,736m/s2 30000km0,385m/s2. For higher altitudes gtot=1,27*classic g +0,0075m/s2 for sun.
For the moon I have not calculated, but rough comparisons surprised me by suggesting proportionally same size heavy core as earths. This would mean that moon is a miniature of earth with high altitude g=1,27*classic.

2.

3. Light also bends in an accelerated frame of reference.

4. Originally Posted by KJW
Light also bends in an accelerated frame of reference.
I have left that out (ignored) and only calculated mass induced bending and the redshift resulting from that, via the "spent" energy (decay). This approach is by my account not regarded earlier. And its magnitude is in the same ballpark as redshift due to expansion of universe. (Or even alternative to that)

5. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by KJW
Light also bends in an accelerated frame of reference.
I have left that out (ignored) and only calculated mass induced bending and the redshift resulting from that, via the "spent" energy (decay). This approach is by my account not regarded earlier. And its magnitude is in the same ballpark as redshift due to expansion of universe. (Or even alternative to that)
It should be noted that with light bending in an accelerated frame of reference, we have light bending without any photon "decay". That is, bending light does not necessitate photon "decay", so that the bending of light in a gravitational field does not necessitate photon "decay" either. In an accelerated frame of reference, we still have redshift and blueshift just as we have in the case of gravity, and the redshift and blueshift determine the acceleration of the frame of reference. Thus, redshift and blueshift in the case of gravity determine the acceleration of the gravitational frame of reference. That being in a gravitational field is the same as being in an accelerated frame of reference is the equivalence principle.

6. Originally Posted by KJW
Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Originally Posted by KJW
Light also bends in an accelerated frame of reference.
I have left that out (ignored) and only calculated mass induced bending and the redshift resulting from that, via the "spent" energy (decay). This approach is by my account not regarded earlier. And its magnitude is in the same ballpark as redshift due to expansion of universe. (Or even alternative to that)
It should be noted that with light bending in an accelerated frame of reference, we have light bending without any photon "decay". That is, bending light does not necessitate photon "decay", so that the bending of light in a gravitational field does not necessitate photon "decay" either. In an accelerated frame of reference, we still have redshift and blueshift just as we have in the case of gravity, and the redshift and blueshift determine the acceleration of the frame of reference. Thus, redshift and blueshift in the case of gravity determine the acceleration of the gravitational frame of reference. That being in a gravitational field is the same as being in an accelerated frame of reference is the equivalence principle.
I say that gravity cause only and always redshift (blueshift due to gravity is impossible ), and photons react to all gravity from every direction at the same time. This total gravity (mainstream (sigma)M*G)*4/pi (my physics) all ad to both bending and redshift. My formulas build on these "facts" and the numbers ad up, which also means the universe do NOT expand
Yes I have read the text books and understand what they try to teach. I just don't believe it, and even less since I found the missing gravity. Black holes is as far as mass can "hide", rest is coming to take it's place in history as fiction.

7. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I say that gravity cause only and always redshift (blueshift due to gravity is impossible), and photons react to all gravity from every direction at the same time.
This is false. Otherwise, we would've detected this with our interferometers.

Note that in general relativity, in a stationary spacetime (a three-dimensional space that does not change with time), light that reflects off a mirror and returns to the source does not undergo an overall change in frequency. Even if the light is redshifted or blueshifted at the mirror, this redshift or blueshift will be undone upon return to the source. Thus, in this case, interferometry, which depends on mixing light from different paths at the same location, will not detect a change in frequency.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I have read the textbooks and understand what they try to teach.
Do you? In order for you to have any chance in convincing us, you need to demonstrate your understanding of general relativity. You can do this by telling us what specifically is wrong with general relativity. Since your theory conflicts with the equivalence principle, you could probably start with that.

8. This is false. Otherwise, we would've detected this with our interferometers.
First all electromagnetic waves are not photons ( just oscillating fields perpendicular to original "signal"). The Changes are small, but this is exactly what Pound and Rebka is considered to have proven. Except they measured z=2,5*10^-15 and my theory give gtot/c^2*22,5m=3,98*10^-15. This for 22,5 m "flight" and is hardly measured (very little) by accident in other experiments.
I wonder who you are demanding me to convince you. It may just be a waste of time to entertain your whatever vagary.
As for the equivalence principle, the weak feather hammer is obvious, but there is a (in large scale) geometrical aspect to it. Remember I have said the shell theory don't work, and the math to correct those flaws are the basis of my grav. theory.
The strong equivalence principle is of course problematic to measure since the total gravitation (essential to at least photons) has not "been found" till i did. Compare the gravitation on sea level g=9,81m/s2 vs. gtot=15,9m/s2. That is why I picked a few examples at altitude, and I must stress that all fields beyond near surface of stellar bodies are 4/pi times stronger than mainstream.
About (Einstein's) equiv.pr. I have no sentiment to say intact atoms should react to grav. (proton/electron mass, photon original color and some other constants and ratios )
I have different masses different gravitation constant so I pretty much just have to ignore the gravitation part of the theory of relativity.

9. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
First all electromagnetic waves are not photons
A decrease in the energy of photons is equivalent to a decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic waves. So, if your theory is claiming that gravity causes a decrease in the energy of photons, then it would be detected by interferometry as a decrease in frequency. But you are claiming that gravity causes a redshift which is a decrease in frequency anyway, so why are you saying that electromagnetic waves are not photons?

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
The Changes are small, but this is exactly what Pound and Rebka is considered to have proven. Except they measured z=2,5*10^-15 and my theory give gtot/c^2*22,5m=3,98*10^-15. This for 22,5 m "flight" and is hardly measured (very little) by accident in other experiments.
The Pound-Rebka experiment was not measured using interferometry. It was measured using the principles of Mössbauer spectroscopy. As I said in my previous post, interferometry would not detect the redshift expected in the Pound-Rebka experiment, but it would detect the redshift that you are claiming to be caused by gravity. It's not a question of magnitude, interferometry and Mössbauer spectroscopy are entirely different, so the Pound-Rebka experiment is irrelevant to the notion that interferometry would invalidate your theory.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I wonder who you are demanding me to convince you.
I am the one who is replying to your posts. I didn't say convince "me", I said convince "us", referring to all the people looking at your posts on this forum. If it is not your purpose to convince us that what you are saying is worthwhile, then why are you posting here? And if you are not interested in demonstrating the value of your theory, then the moderators will place it in the Trash Can.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Remember I have said the shell theory don't work, and the math to correct those flaws are the basis of my grav. theory.
In general relativity, one has Birkhoff's theorem. I personally have not seen the proof of Birkhoff's theorem, but I have seen the derivation of the Schwarzschild metric, which I believe implies Birkhoff's theorem. This is because obtaining the Schwarzschild metric involves solving a first-order ordinary differential equation in the radial variable. This differential equation, like all differential equations, describes local behaviour, and the solution over a region is obtained by specifying the solution on a spherical surface (a given value of the radial variable). Thus, the solution outside this spherical surface is determined entirely by the solution on the spherical surface, which in turn is determined by what is inside the spherical surface as a single-value parameter. If we have a matter distribution consisting of concentric spherical shells, then the regions between the shells are also described by Schwarzschild metrics, with each region described by a different mass parameter.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I have different masses different gravitation constant so I pretty much just have to ignore the gravitation part of the theory of relativity.
Based on your theory, it appears to me that you don't really understand general relativity. For example, can you provide a general relativistic explanation of why objects fall when dropped? Whether you agree with general relativity or not, having an understanding of general relativity is important because it goes toward credibility. You're trying to provide an alternative theory of gravity, so you need to understand the theory it is alternative to. And if you don't demonstrate your understanding of general relativity, then your theory itself will be taken as a lack of understanding of general relativity.

10. so why are you saying that electromagnetic waves are not photons?
I'm saying not all are, most probably are when counting how may. Then there are those propagating 90 degrees compared to photons.
I am sure metrological interferometers would be able in principle to do Pound Rebkas measurement. About the astronomical interferometers I cant guess what kind you might refer to, and they are not my trade anyhow. So I could need some good faith specifier to maybe find out what sort of interferometer at what kind of experiment invalidate what exactly?

I try to answer to all comments and have done till now, and if I'm not agreeing with every mainstream detail, this would not be a very new idea. Threatening do not help and this time do absolutely not change my theory. I'm not into every trade so "questions" could be like everyone can understand them.
I'm modifying Newtons gravity, and a object drops for the same reason or reasons if the theories give same result. I am not going to copy textbooks here to prove NOTING. And it should be taken as relative theory do not work and can in future not be coupled to proper gravitational theories.
Just come to my mind we are here to talk about new (own) theories, that's why I'm not writing this in Physics Forum.

11. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I am sure metrological interferometers would be able in principle to do Pound Rebkas measurement. About the astronomical interferometers I cant guess what kind you might refer to, and they are not my trade anyhow. So I could need some good faith specifier to maybe find out what sort of interferometer at what kind of experiment invalidate what exactly?
I didn't have a particular interferometer or even a particular experiment in mind when I suggested that they would invalidate your theory. You seem to be saying that light decreases in frequency as it spends time in a gravitational field. If that were true, then any experiment in which a laser beam is split into two paths of different length then recombined would detect the change in frequency. But for a stationary spacetime in general relativity, the gravitational potential is a spacetime function and therefore the two paths of the laser beam will recombine at the same frequency. Because such experiments would be very sensitive to changes in frequency, it is reasonable to assume that changes in frequency have not been detected even if the experiments were not designed to test for changes in frequency.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I'm not agreeing with every mainstream detail, this would not be a very new idea.
No one is expecting you to agree with every mainstream detail. I also disagree with the mainstream regarding particular details. For example, I disagree with the mainstream regarding the emission of gravitational radiation from a rotating arbitrarily shaped rigid object.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I'm modifying Newtons gravity
I thought that to be the case because it seemed to me that you have a somewhat Newtonian view of gravity. However, you are modifying Newtonian gravity in a way that disagrees with general relativity. In fact, your theory disagrees with general relativity worse than Newtonian theory.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
an object drops for the same reason or reasons if the theories give same result.
That's not true. Newtonian theory and general relativity have a very different reason for why a dropped object falls. But this difference does not itself lead to different results. But it does turn out that Newtonian theory leads to a contradiction when applied to the Pound-Rebka experiment, even though it does give the same result.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I am not going to copy textbooks here
Nobody wants you to copy textbooks here. You were being asked to provide your understanding of general relativity.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
And it should be taken as relative theory do not work and can in future not be coupled to proper gravitational theories.
You need to justify this statement.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Just come to my mind we are here to talk about new (own) theories, that's why I'm not writing this in Physics Forum.
Even though you are posting in the Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas forum, you still have to provide justification. Also, in discussing your theory with you, I am under no obligation to agree with it, and if I find that your theory is somehow flawed, I am within my right to say so. Yes, the Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas forum does allow for less rigor on your part, but it doesn't protect what you post from scrutiny from other forum members.

12. Since you refer to "if made" experiments I am sure that it would be found that light ,sea level earth, is losing energy E*1/1,79*10^-16 for every traveled meter in any direction if measured .The experiment would maybe need to be out of the box like Pound and Rebka:s experiment. That by the way will work horizontally in my favor.
Yes I disagree more with general relativity than Newton, even if Einstein was aware of shortcoming with dimensional masses. Which always pointed out by mentioning the validity is for point like masses.
I meant that there can be several correct and valid theories on the same phenomenon. In this case we have two (Newton,Einstein)
that give somewhat useful calculations to a part of necessary implementations.
About your "obsession" with my understanding of a falling ball. As I understand it the ball is following a geodesic line, induced by earths mass (a very hypothetic line from an equivalently so equation) and do not do any work, do not accelerate (at least not in that frame) and would not "feel" anything if undisturbed by air resistance or such. An besides a still observer would have to work while observing P=0,5W*9,81m/s2^2*m(weight of observer). The other half watt is done by the floor.
This statement is my personal knowledge (opinion) and both living and dead, scientists or not, have to "live" with that. This is a discussion forum (by my understanding) and personal floccinaucinihilipificaution is plainly uncivilized even on this informal forum.
And criticism is kind of the idea, but I hope for more discussion that just "no", since the math isn't complex this time.

13. Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
Since you refer to "if made" experiments I am sure that it would be found that light ,sea level earth, is losing energy E*1/1,79*10^-16 for every traveled meter in any direction if measured .The experiment would maybe need to be out of the box like Pound and Rebka:s experiment. That by the way will work horizontally in my favor.
Interferometry is extremely sensitive to changes in relative phase between the light paths. A difference in frequency results in a constantly changing relative phase and I think if such a frequency difference existed in interferometry experiments, that it would already have been detected, even if the experiments weren't designed to measure the difference in frequency.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
I meant that there can be several correct and valid theories on the same phenomenon. In this case we have two (Newton,Einstein) that give somewhat useful calculations to a part of necessary implementations.
That depends on what you mean by "correct and valid". For example, Newton's theory predicts results that are quite close to observation. Because Newton's theory was based on observation in the first place, it is only natural that it would be quite close to observation. Also, the difference between observation and the simplicity of Newton's theory is fortuitously quite small, so Newton's theory remains quite useful where its simplicity is a real advantage, and the accuracy of Einstein's theory is not needed.

On the other hand, from an ontological and epistemological perspective, Newton's theory is wrong. Newton's theory does not describe what gravity actually is. Newton's theory describes gravity as a force, whereas gravity is not a force but an accelerated frame of reference along with the associated time dilation, as described by Einstein's theory. Because Newton's theory is based on observation, it lacks the insight required to make predictions that go beyond observation. By contrast, Einstein's theory has a logical and mathematical basis, and therefore its scope is not limited to mere observation.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
As I understand it the ball is following a geodesic line, induced by earths mass (a very hypothetic line from an equivalently so equation) and do not do any work, do not accelerate (at least not in that frame) and would not "feel" anything if undisturbed by air resistance or such. An besides a still observer would have to work while observing P=0,5W*9,81m/s2^2*m(weight of observer). The other half watt is done by the floor.
Are you trying to fake an understanding of general relativity? For example, you said that falling objects:

do not accelerate (at least not in that frame)

whereas an object that is freefalling in a vacuum is not accelerating in every coordinate system. This is such an important point that failing to understand it can be considered a failure to understand general relativity. Do you know what acceleration is in general relativity?

And this:

An besides a still observer would have to work while observing P=0,5W*9,81m/s2^2*m(weight of observer). The other half watt is done by the floor.

is just plain wrong and suggests you are mixing Newtionian notions with general relativity.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
This is a discussion forum (by my understanding) and personal floccinaucinihilipificaution is plainly uncivilized even on this informal forum.
Sorry, but you are making claims that conflict with a theory that (1) has passed every test that has been put to it, and (2) has a sound logical foundation. It is only natural that I start from a position of assuming you are wrong. And because you made a prediction that I believe would have already failed to be observed, my initial assumption seems to be validated. Also, you haven't really provided any basis for your theory, or any basis for the belief that general relativity is wrong. You said that you have read the textbooks and understand what they try to teach, which I regard as an attempt to elevate your level of authority concerning accepted physics. Anybody can say they are knowledgeable in an effort to convince others of the value of what they say. That is why I felt it necessary to put your knowledge of general relativity to the test.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
And criticism is kind of the idea, but I hope for more discussion that just "no"
But you have gotten more discussion than just "no". I don't know what you're expecting, but I have mentioned how interferometry may have already invalidated your theory. And I have asked you to justify your claims, in particular your claim that general relativity is wrong. Personally, I see no value in asking you to justify your theory itself, so I focus on where your theory conflicts with accepted physics. It seems to be a failure of many people putting forward alternative theories that they expect physicists to directly test their theories without realising that their theories may have already been indirectly tested by the tests of the accepted theories they seek to replace.

Originally Posted by Timo Moilanen
the math isn't complex this time.
The mathematics is not well presented and is difficult to read. Each formula should be on a line on its own and have some form of explanation of why the formula is what it is. If a formula uses superscripts or subscripts, then you should use the corresponding BB codes. Unfortunately, this forum has stopped supporting LaTeX.

14. The best (most suitable) interferometers I "found" are LIGO (4km) and Virgo that should be run at 1,5THz /n where n<10 for this magnitude of (delta)f.
I meant that for example same constants can be determined by different paths, probably wishful thinking of me. I cant remind myself of any correct.
I have not invented any "out of this world" theory and it is based on done measurements (wrongly interpreted are the cornerstone). I only use classic time as unit mostly. Neither do I go into quantum physics, smallest is the nucleon that I use instead of mass (1neutron+1proton+1electron=2) and gravity comes from n1(nucleons)*n2(nucleons)*constant/geometry. Gravity for orbits is not linear ever, for light it is always linear.
Since I don't understand gravity or was it equivalence principle, could you please explain it to me coz I'm obviously a bad reader (that is actually a problem for many years now). Then I can pretend smart next time.
I can prove G is wrong and not constant. So masses are also substantially of. But by measuring for instance the Standard Gravitational Parameter are put "right". The "proper formula for µ =MG is µ=mn*pi/8*c^2*Mi (indexed M=correct mass) So you will no have a facile task to "defend mankind" from me. One useful thing that I have calculated that is unmeasured is earths and Mars:s gravitation profiles per altitude. ( This where I'm called flat earther ) Well they have smashed landers all over Mars, learned the hard way. It is good NASA is cautious about the moon they do not yet have enough practice to replace physics as on earth that is much simpler (The moon is messing the orbit the "right" way and gravity is compensated with fuel)
I have not written "almost any" math about gravitation this thread I planned to discuss light.
I still would be thankful for some short clarification on the falling ball, I'm probably unable to handle relativity theory mainstream unviolated.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement