RE: How Gravity Produces Electromagnetism and Redshift per Distance
I am not a physicist, I'll start with that. I do have some questions that you might be able to answer, or at least clarify for me.
"Due to their decrease in mass, they are able to be influenced even more by the gravitational effects of the Great Attractor. This leads to a shrinking in the Figure-8 orbital over increasing distances as it is repetitively redshifted. Due to the inverse radius-squared function of gravity, this means that the force of gravity is exponentially higher over larger distances because the radius is shrinking as the Figure-8 size shrinks."
For the moment, I will disregard the mechanism imputed to decrease the mass, and attempt to understand this paragraph.
Your other writings indicate that the force of gravity is a function of the mass of the objects interacting, and this is the accepted consensus in the field. However, decreasing mass decreases the gravitational force, rather than increases it. Therefore the above quoted text seems absolutely incorrect, in that an object of less mass than another would be less influenced by another massive object, not more.
Further, the force of gravity, due to the inverse square law, is decreased exponentially over longer distances, not increased.
Could you discuss these issues please?
Thanks!
Thanks for reading! Good question. The reason a decreased mass increases the effect isn't that the force of gravity is larger, rather that a decrease in mass of the orbiting particle means that even at a lower force of gravity it is more able to have its pathing bend.
The Figure-8 size decreases as light is redshifted (which makes the particles it is composed of decrease in mass) due to the bending of the path being more easily influenced. For comparison, I reference two objects passing by the sun. Let's just say that a small comet passes the sun at essentially the same velocity and the same initial trajectory as a large planet. Even though the total force of gravity on the comet would be less, the bending in the trajectory of the comet due to a gravitational pull to one side would be more because it is more easily influenced by the gravity of the sun than the planet having substantially more mass.
This could also be considered in such systems as the orbit of the Earth. Let's say there is a comet that is flowing in an identical orbit of the Earth around the sun. Due to it's lower mass, the sun is more able to influence the trajectory of the comet than the Earth so the comet would have to physically travel faster in order to maintain the same orbit and not be pulled towards the sun. As light is traveling at essentially the same velocity after redshift as before, this results in a reduction in the Figure-8 orbital size of light as it is redshifted over larger and larger distances.
This is why light that is redshifted over distance as it travels in a Figure-8 orbital has the physical size of the Figure-8 orbital shrink. The masses of the particles the light is composed of get smaller and more easily have their trajectory influenced by gravity. Due to a decrease in the radius of the Figure-8 orbital pattern over increasing distances, the force of gravity exponentially increases as an inverse of radius-squared. This leads to the exponential increase in redshift per distance that we observe. This is why dark energy is a misinterpretation of this mechanism.
These larger distances are within repetitive Figure-8 patterns so the particle's actual distance of separation from the body it orbits is not equal to its total distance traveled. Let's say it travels through one complete Figure-8 cycle, it will have gone the distance of the Figure-8 but it will be at a very similar position to where it initially was (minus differences due to redshift discussed above). The distance of separation is always, at a maximum, the furthest distance outward in a given Figure-8 portion. If it travels through 5 or 10 times or however many, it will have a distance of travel that is equal to the sum total of the Figure-8 orbitals, but it will not have a radius of separation of that distance. The force of gravity is a function of its actual distance of separation across its travel rather than being a matter of its total distance traveled. Its separation from the body it orbits will fluctuate between the minimum distance of separation of essentially zero as it passes through the center of the body and the maximum distance of separation at the outer edge of a Figure-8.
The gravitational redshift due to motion inward and outward will always cancel because they will be equal and opposite, but because it also is traveling from one side of a loop of each Figure-8 to the other it will have an additive redshift due to this motion specifically. This leads to the observations of cumulative redshift per distance as a result of gravitational redshift on the light rather than due to motion of the source of the light.
When we look at distant galaxies, then, the light of a galaxy 12 billion lightyears away will have traveled in these Figure-8 orbitals repetitively, having a gravitational redshift per distance that is a function of its separation from the body it orbits at any given time.
We presently position galaxies in our mapping of the observed universe based on the angle that the light arrives at Earth and the calculated distance. In this model, the galaxy is not positioned remotely where we see it, but rather its light has been gravitationally lensed in this way so that when it arrives at Earth it just so happens to be traveling at a given angle in this gravitational lensing process. Then, because it has traveled a specific distance, we see certain characteristics that are measures of distance that are in line with what we know (like its brightness, for example.) Even if it travels in a Figure-8 pattern, its brightness will still be diminished over larger distances in the same way as if it traveled in a straight line. We just assume that the light has traveled generally straight to arrive at Earth, and this plays a critical role in how we actually map the cosmos.
In this way, even the Milky Way galaxy is observable "from the outside" when we look into the cosmos, likely many times. There are many optical illusions that arise due to gravitational lensing on the large-scale where light is physically able to be bent over its course of travel so that it reverses direction repetitively (as in a Figure-8).
Ok, so the reduced mass of the photons creates less inertial resistance to the force of gravity exerted by the massive attractor, and this results in photons being drawn into shorter orbits, a tighter figure 8. So photons both decrease in frequency, and lose mass, as a result of being affected by moving away from a massive attractor, and when they are approaching such attractor, their frequency is blueshifted instead of redshifted.
Is this correct?
Edit: in the interest of clarity, imma try to understand one thing at a time, if you'll bear with me.
Yes that is it. We presently say that photons have no mass, but they have an infinitesimal mass which can become larger due to compression (blueshift) or smaller due to stretching (redshift). When we measure light's frequency, we are ultimately measuring its mass, so increase in frequency is due to increase in mass and decrease in frequency is due to decrease in mass. We can't measure mass on such a small scale but we can measure frequency.
Yes when light approaches the body it is blueshifted. In a given loop of a Figure-8, though, lets say that light arbitrarily starts at the center, the beginning of one of the two loops of the Figure-8. It then moves radially outward and back inward to reach the center once more. This radial motion ultimately produces no shift because the two motions--redshift as it travels outward and blueshift as it travels inward--cancel. It is in the orbital motion when the light is always moving at essentially a right angle (which is away from the source of gravity) to go from one side of the loop to the other where the additive redshift occurs so that when the light arrives at the center again it has undergone cumulative redshift with each loop.
I very much appreciate your informative reply.
I actually understood how the cancellation works, but thanks for making it even easier to understand.
Is the change in the mass of a photon with frequency canon in physics, or your innovation? I apologize if I seem to be asking you questions I might easily find elsewhere, but, I spend a lot of time on Steemit, and prefer to discuss it with you, rather than read random links.
Photons are considered to be massless.
To quote the wikipedia, "In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero." This is important because they say it is zero. What this means is that the claim is that there is no room for error. If it is 10^-50 g, or 10^-50000 g, it is still not zero; there comes a point in our ability to accurately measure a particle's mass where we are no longer able to. So instead of it being interpreted as having an extremely small mass, so close to zero that we cannot detect it, it has become actually stated to be zero mass.
It isn't really anything new to say that photons have a mass, but the standard models state that they do not. This is easily refuted with simple examples: if they had no mass, they would not gravitationally lens. Light has energy and E=mc^2. But the standard model is held as fact so it is difficult to get past such barriers.
In my model photons are no different than anything else, particles can be infinitely large relative to atoms or infinitely small. Sufficiently small particles are what we call "photons", which their variances in mass is what makes up the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The smaller the particles in mass, the lower the energy, the lower the frequency. X-ray light is composed of higher mass particles than radio wave light.
Here's another Steemit article I wrote on the topic, Photons Do Have a Mass.
IIRC it was Einstein himself that ascribed to photons mass, as they are impacted by gravity, and cannot exceed the speed of light.
Odd, that. As they do not either decrease below the speed of light (in a vacuum). Also, having mass they should not be able to travel the speed of light.
Photons are weird!
While I accept there are differences between matter and energy, it is also true that they are both aspects of something else, as they can be interchanged, again as Einstein proved.
So, I accept that photons do have somemass, and violate the laws of physics by traveling at the speed of light, and as best I can understand from your answer, physicists accept this is true because light is affected by gravity, which can only affect mass - but, they do not ascribe to photons a sufficient mass to be measurable, and indeed, we have no device with which we can calculate the mass of a photon, so while they accept that photons do have mass, they state that it is '0' mass.
"The speed of light" is very similar to the zero mass concept. I like to call it "the limit of motion of matter." No mass truly travels at that rate, but rather light is so small in mass that it is perceivable as traveling at essentially the limit of motion of matter to such a degree that we have actually labeled this limit to be "the speed of light".
As far as acceptance of photon mass, zero mass is akin to saying no mass; there is a fine line between zero and "perceived to be zero", but that fine line is completely disregarded or unconsidered in science which leads to photons being interpreted drastically differently from particles that are said to have a mass.
Also, regarding the "speed of light", when a vacuum is involved, it is much the same issue: even if it approaches a vacuum, it is impossible to truly be an absolute vacuum (such as absolute zero Kelvin) as there are infinite layers of smaller and smaller particles that will still make up the space. It is possible that under much greater vacuum conditions than we can create particles can travel in ways not fully understood (in other words, infinite speed rather than what we consider the speed of light), though that is something I don't have much else to say about, just a thought I come back to here and there.
Also, when there are infinite smaller layers considered, if we could zoom in on the lowest energy photon we could ever detect and its surroundings, it would be like looking at the observable universe. Those particles radiate in the same way as the stars and planets radiate, and their radiation may be so small that we simply are completely unaware of it. But we would see these "stars" as traveling at what we call "the speed of light", when the particles they emit would be traveling much faster just like the light coming from our stars relative to the stars' motion. If we keep going down further and further into this structure, perhaps again it is possible for particles to travel at what we may consider "infinite velocity" but they are so small that they are undetected completely. Just some extrapolations I like to ponder.
Another question pops up:
I am again confronted with a seeming contradiction. How can R decrease if distance is greater?
Let's say that a Figure-8 has a total length of 10 units if it were to be stretched flat into a line so that the total length to trace from the center and through both loops and back to the center is 10 units, and that its loops have a radius of 3 from the center. Now let's say that a particle flows along this Figure-8 repetitively, moving through it 10 times, traveling a length of 100. While it's distance of travel is continuously additive, its maximum radius of separation from the center is still 3. Gravitational redshift would be a function of the distance of separation as it travels and so at the minimum force of gravity would be when the particle is 3 units from the center, regardless of where it is in the 100 units of travel.
In the case of redshift shrinking the size of the Figure-8, lets say the loop radius diminishes as redshift occurs so that its maximum radius is now 2.5 after traveling a length of 100 units. Initially, the gravitational redshift occurred over a maximum radius of 3 but now the maximum radius is smaller. As gravity is an inverse of radius-squared, the reduced size of the Figure-8 orbital due to repetitive travel through the loop leads to an increased force of gravity on the particle as it travels. This leads to an accelerating rate of redshift per distance because the distance of separation decreases as the Figure-8 orbital shrinks over larger distances traveled.
I know its a bit confusing, but that is because it is literally not straight-forward. The key is that the light is traveling in Figure-8 orbitals due to gravitational lensing rather than straight lines and this causes it to be maintained within a distance of separation of the radius of the Figure-8 even while traveling further and further lengths from the source. If it were traveling in a straight line then the gravity from a given object would decrease over larger distances traveled, but because it keeps looping back inward to it larger distances don't have the same result. Light that arrives at Earth after many such Figure-8 orbits looks like it traveled 13 billion lightyears in distance, for example, because it did; but it just didn't travel in a straight line as is assumed but rather in Figure-8's due to the immense gravitational pull of a sufficiently large and proximal mass (the Great Attractor is my best guess). This object gravitationally lensing the light is simultaneously gravitationally redshifting with each loop it travels through. I hope that made sense! I can make some figures or even write another post about this specifically if that would help, I think it would be useful to do so regardless.
Ok, I am indeed struggling with this, but not because I am confusing a straight line.
The 8 loop, if laid out straight would be 10 units long, and has a radius of 3 units. When the radius shrinks to 2.5, then the length of the loop, if laid out straight, would then be shorter, a lesser distance. Say, 8 units.
If I made loops with strings, that's how it would work out.
So, stating that the overall length remains the same, or increases, while the radius decreases, seems contradictory. Gravitational lensing does cause the 'straight line path' taken along the gradient to be curved, in this case curved enough to be an orbit.
Are you saying that the loop becomes 'stretched', as in elongated? Then I could see that the transverse radius could be shorter, while the overall distance becomes longer. If the loop retained the same proportion of length to width (as I was assuming) then increasing the length would increase the radius.
So I must assume that you are referring to the 'width' of the loop decreasing, while the length of the loop is increasing.
Is that correct?
You are right to say that the overall length of the Figure-8 would also shorten.
I guess the best way to really visualize this is through something like the picture here. Ultimately, this light is part of the electromagnetic field of the body causing these Figure-8's to arise and would be much the same, though we are only seeing a tiny fraction of the body's electromagnetic field flow arriving at Earth.
Envision light traveling in the outer most Figure-8 depicted, it would have a much larger radius than more inner Figure-8's, so the gravitational redshift that results from the outer ring is less per distance because the motion (especially to get from one side of a loop to the other) occurs further outward from the system.
I wasn't intending to say that the overall length remains the same while radius decreases, sorry, it was more so an oversimplification. The actual distance traveled in each given Figure-8 would shrink as well as you state, but the reason the rate of gravitational redshift per distance would accelerate is due to the reduced radius.
For simplicity, let's say over the course of repetitively traveling in a Figure-8 orbital, it shrunk down to a total length of 5 from 10 and a radius of 1.5 from 3. Then, two orbits through the length of ~5 would have the same distance as the first Figure-8 traveled, but the gravitational redshift would now be a function of a smaller radius which would produce an observation of an accelerating rate of redshift per distance.
Ok, so the less the maximum distance the particle orbits from the Mass, the greater the redshift, due to the gravitic force being stronger?
Yeah exactly. So this gravitational redshift approach is specifically intended to address why dark energy does not exist, as it was interpreted to exist due to accelerating rate of redshift per distance.
At smaller distances, the rate of redshift per distance is essentially constant which is known as Hubble's Law; this is because the Figure-8 sizes of subsequent orbits are essentially the same initially and then begin to shrink exponentially over larger distances. Hubble's Law is considered linear, but really it is just the linear portion of an exponential, where it has yet to "take off" so it appears like a linear relationship within a certain range. This is why we had "expansion of space" initially, then saw redshift per distance became exponential and instead of recognizing them to all be caused by the same thing, another new concept was added on top of "dark energy" to attempt to explain the observations.
This is where Occam's Razor really drives home that these added complexities to the model are misinterpretations rather than actual descriptions of reality because the observations can also be the result of gravity as we are discussing, which requires no additional fundamental elements in the model but rather removes many.
Valueassignmenthelp.com is the finest website for assignment help online and homework help services. We have 10years of experience PhD level experts for all subjects. Value-assignment-help highly searched website for paperwork and content writers. check our services and our coverage range.
Best online assignment help