Redshift vs Gravitational field

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:23 pm

I guess this will be my last Topic-post in this obscure forum :mrgreen:

Redshift would define that stars are moving away from us, this freaks me out. Why doesn't anyone say it is the gravity field of our solar system that is expanding over time, and that is what stretches the incommoning lightwaves, causing the redshift effect. A gravity field made up out of emitted gravity particles (8), that move at a constant speed, would expand exponential (x^2) because they originate from a round object (sun), these particles that move away from us cause the Doppler effect. The light shifts happens due to solar gravitation, in the same way that Einstein predicted that starlight is bent by the sun (ref.).

What do you guys think, doesn't that make sense?

Image
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by tswsl1989 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:32 pm

Why doesn't anyone say it is the gravity field of our solar system that is expanding over time, and that is what stretches the incommoning lightwaves, causing the redshift effect.
Well nobody says that because it's not quite right :)

Space is expanding over time, so you get redshift as a result of that. The mathematical explanation for this is very closely related to the bending of light in the vicinity of a massive object.

The answers you want for this one lie in General Relativity. If I get time over the Christmas break then I might post a summary of GR and some of it's effects on the wiki.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:42 pm

tswsl1989 wrote:Space is expanding over time, so you get redshift as a result of that. The mathematical explanation for this is very closely related to the bending of light in the vicinity of a massive object.
If light is bend by a massive object as you point out, than it's properties are changed, the only property that can change is it's frequency as it's speed is constant. Thus our sun with its exponential gravity field, would change the frequency of incoming light none the less. So you can still argument that the universe is expanding faster than the gravitational field of our solar system, and you have to state that we are the center of the universe, which expending-universe-protagonists already do, versus the very simple and logic explanation that our solar gravity field is expending and that's it.

Looking forward to your clarifications around x-mas when you have the time,

grtz,

m.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Sat Jan 15, 2011 12:42 pm

If the spaze is expanding, than wouldn't the starz be shrinking or iz there no such thing az conservation of spaze?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by tswsl1989 » Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:00 pm

No such thing as conservation of space. cf General Relativity

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:18 pm

tswsl1989 wrote:No such thing as conservation of space. cf General Relativity
So the starz are loozing gravity to generate the expanding spaze or doez that come naturally with the expanding univerze, were everything was already in plaze but there waz nothing inbetween before the Big Bang, a zillion tiny bangz all at once?

Btw sorry for the zzz'z but I burned my tongue on some hot zoup.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by CharmQuark » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:15 am

Chelle wrote: So the starz are loozing gravity to generate the expanding spaze or doez that come naturally with the expanding univerze, were everything was already in plaze but there waz nothing inbetween before the Big Bang, a zillion tiny bangz all at once?

Btw sorry for the zzz'z but I burned my tongue on some hot zoup.
Ok I laughed :oops: :lol:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Kasuha » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:22 am

We're in the controversial section here so I believe it won't matter if I add a bit of crackpottism of mine.

Generally I don't like the idea of gravity being made of "falling space" so I thought maybe we can try to explain it rather by mass adding dimensionality to space.

To explain - let's first define a method how to measure dimensionality of space. You start to "flood-fill" the space with massless objects of certain volume evenly and after certain time you measure ratio of the volume you filled to the surface the resulting object has. The crudest method to measure it is to calculate ratio of all used objects to objects which still can have some neighbors added. In an ideal case the ratio is x^3:x^2 which means we have a 3-dimensional space. But notice that wherever there is mass there is gravity which bends space and thus you get slightly more space within certain surface - that means the dimension of that space is not exactly 3 but rather 3.00000000001 or something like that. The more mass in one place the bigger dimension of the space surrounding it.

The rough idea goes like this: let's imagine empty space (virtual particles etc) as a crystalline lattice of exactly 3 dimensions and let's imagine mass particles as impurities in this lattice, which make individual parts of the lattice slightly dislocated. The dislocation goes through all the lattice but its effects fall down with the distance. This introduces the bent space caused by mass. And logically (at least to me) as long as it's energetically beneficial for the lattice to have dislocations in one place rather than to have them spread out all over the place there is a force pulling these dislocations together just by their presence - something we call gravity.

It's all very rough but I believe the understanding of gravity on quantum level might go through here somewhere...

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:29 am

The 's' is back :P

Kasuha wrote:The rough idea goes like this: let's imagine empty space as a crystalline lattice of exactly 3 dimensions and let's imagine mass particles as impurities in this lattice, which make individual parts of the lattice slightly dislocated. The dislocation goes through all the lattice but its effects fall down with the distance.
I don't think a single lattice works for gravity, far to complicated, how do you imagine the connections, wouldn't going in a direction along the lines of the lattice, be faster than others?

Btw as I am a true 'crackpot' I also attract others :mrgreen: for instance this guy who came up with Foamy (A)ether, it looks a bit like your lattice idea, check it out, he has some interesting clips: http://www3.telus.net/foamyether/gravity.html

Personally I think there might be foamy-structures in the Aether that keep everything sort of in place, but they don't apply pressure, it's an emitted particle that does.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Kasuha » Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:53 pm

Chelle wrote:I don't think a single lattice works for gravity, far to complicated, how do you imagine the connections, wouldn't going in a direction along the lines of the lattice, be faster than others?
I am not imagining any particular lattice. There probably is no real lattice involved but that does not change the principle.

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:16 pm

Your drawing is beautiful Kasuha.

I do not think you should stop posting here. Somebody has to keep this place alive. I would recommend trying usenet too, though there is quite alot of crappy interactions there. You can post to google groups sci.physics and possibly get some quality interactions. I would stay away from the moderated groups though. Usenet is like a cloud, and your post goes out to multiple sites in an email type format. Your information becomes distributed, so it is more of a free speech medium than this one, where a moderator can just delete a thread if they feel like it. This information is not your own here.

To your redshift theory:
Here is one experiment that might cause some sparks somewhere.

As a satellite leaves the solar system what should its radios behavior be under your theory? I believe that under the existing theory if a satellite has a 5 MegaHertz crystal for its radio frequency, that it will remain at 5MHz but for its velocity behavior, which should be a fairly clean doppler shift as it leaves all nearby objects.

Then too, should there be an effect based on galactic gravitation, so that we would witness more redshifting from equidistant objects?

Since the sun is the major object in the solar system, should we witness a variation in redshift from a single star as we orbit the sun?

Jeeze, here's another one: shouldn't our sun's radiation vary in frequency as we get closer or farther away from it?

I haven't really thought it through carefully, but there do seem to be quite alot of testable options here, which is really nice. A lot of theories don't have these.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:47 am

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Your drawing is beautiful Kasuha.

I do not think you should stop posting here. Somebody has to keep this place alive. I would recommend trying usenet too, though there is quite a lot of crappy interactions there. You can post to google groups sci.physics and possibly get some quality interactions. I would stay away from the moderated groups though. Usenet is like a cloud, and your post goes out to multiple sites in an email type format. Your information becomes distributed, so it is more of a free speech medium than this one, where a moderator can just delete a thread if they feel like it. This information is not your own here.
Hi Tim,

You are mixing up me (chelle) with Kasuha, he came up with a 'falling space' model for gravity. If you would like to see more drawings you might want to check my blog: http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com. There is also an extended topic on Redshift.

The reason I thought it would be more or less my last post was, because I'm working on a mechanical model of an 8-formation. I want to try it out in water and see if it would screw forward. Someone is helping me out with duplicating a prototype rotor I have with a mold, but its taking a lot of time to get the 32 pieces done. Anyway, if the thing would work, which is still the big question, than I could write a paper, but as long as I don't know if the thing works, I have nothing to back my claims.

... and thanks for the tip on usenet ... btw I know that some forums are rather quick on shutting down debate. Some time ago Stephen asked to post my worries about the LHC on a more well know forum, and recently I have done so, but the post was rather quickly closed, you can check it out over here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=463394
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote: To your redshift theory:
Here is one experiment that might cause some sparks somewhere.

As a satellite leaves the solar system what should its radios behavior be under your theory? I believe that under the existing theory if a satellite has a 5 MegaHertz crystal for its radio frequency, that it will remain at 5MHz but for its velocity behavior, which should be a fairly clean doppler shift as it leaves all nearby objects.
You might want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Then too, should there be an effect based on galactic gravitation, so that we would witness more redshifting from equidistant objects?

Since the sun is the major object in the solar system, should we witness a variation in redshift from a single star as we orbit the sun?
Sure, because all other stars are 'moving away' from the sun, it makes no difference in observation.
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Jeeze, here's another one: shouldn't our sun's radiation vary in frequency as we get closer or farther away from it?
Did you know that the earth doesn't move in one fluent motion around the sun, it goes shock-wise.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:07 pm

Sorry about that Chelle.
Anyway, very nice drawing you posted.
I don't see any serious answers here on my questions, which I admit I asked too many of.

You know, there are some blue shifted stars.
I am definitely open to some reshuffle of the existing physics that will make more sense and be more compact. Since your theory is gravitationally based, here is a simple perspective that seems like it should be consistent with relativity theory:

The GR interpretation is nearly that gravity does not exist, for instead space takes on curvature. Since the earth is held in orbit around the sun then this must be the balanced path such that the 'straight line' interpretation is literally the earth's orbital path. If this is so then this would be true of all objects in spacetime, and so we should witness a light beam take this same path. Since the light beam does not obey this spatial behavior, but especially because the path that the earth takes is actually related to its velocity, which the 'straight line' interpretation ignores, then this interpretation of GR is flawed. This interpretation is used over and over again as a fabric which 'falls away' at the sun in a pretty curve. Hawking's latest book puts this graphic on a pool table, which is a fine addition since we now have balls to shoot any which way, but the fact remains that the curve is not indicating a mean path through space; it is an acceleration field; barely a gravitational replacement that is the common text.

This is mildly nearby to your own theory, but is more an attack on GR.

Good luck with your rotor contraption. Sounds very interesting. I'll try to take a look at your site. Sorry again for the poor reading. Same advice applies though. Also there are unmoderated usenet forums. Most of the moderated ones are over regulated. I use sci.math and sci.physics some.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by chelle » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:31 pm

Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:I don't see any serious answers here on my questions, which I admit I asked too many of.
I don't think the replies you got where too bad, perhaps when you go into detail some flaws might appear, like General Relativity is a perfection of Newtons Laws. But you need to be able to observe what is exactly going at the lowest level, I don't think that a difference between rotation or vibration is observable, anyway I do not know enough about the subject to give any serious feedback.
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:You know, there are some blue shifted stars.
I am definitely open to some reshuffle of the existing physics that will make more sense and be more compact. Since your theory is gravitationally based, here is a simple perspective that seems like it should be consistent with relativity theory:

The GR interpretation is nearly that gravity does not exist, for instead space takes on curvature. Since the earth is held in orbit around the sun then this must be the balanced path such that the 'straight line' interpretation is literally the earth's orbital path. If this is so then this would be true of all objects in spacetime, and so we should witness a light beam take this same path. Since the light beam does not obey this spatial behavior, but especially because the path that the earth takes is actually related to its velocity, which the 'straight line' interpretation ignores, then this interpretation of GR is flawed. This interpretation is used over and over again as a fabric which 'falls away' at the sun in a pretty curve. Hawking's latest book puts this graphic on a pool table, which is a fine addition since we now have balls to shoot any which way, but the fact remains that the curve is not indicating a mean path through space; it is an acceleration field; barely a gravitational replacement that is the common text.

This is mildly nearby to your own theory, but is more an attack on GR.
I believe the curved space is a mediocre attempt to graphically represent Einstein's Idea. I don't think there is anything wrong with GR itself, my concept of emitted gravity particles (8) is inline with it. For instance if you have a sphere that emits these particles, than the most gravity is close to the surface, you could say that everything is getting more compressed the closer to the sphere, and that's the same as saying that space increases or decreases the further you go or the closer you are from the mass.

Regarding Hawkins Radiation, he might be right, perhaps one part of the particle - antiparticle pair, might not be screwed downwards when it has an adverse spin-direction, perhaps it is a too simplistic interpretation ... wouldn't there be a bond between the two particles? Anyway, I also don't know enough about his theory to judge it.
Tim_BandTechDotCom wrote:Good luck with your rotor contraption. Sounds very interesting. I'll try to take a look at your site. Sorry again for the poor reading. Same advice applies though. Also there are unmoderated usenet forums. Most of the moderated ones are over regulated. I use sci.math and sci.physics some.
Thanks.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
Tim_BandTechDotCom
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Redshift vs Gravitational field

Post by Tim_BandTechDotCom » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:12 pm

So you like aether theories.
At this point I like any theories, so long as there is some fairly simple means by which they develop. Just what are the qualities of the aether that you work with? Seems to have a density, but I don't wish to put words into your mouth.

There is a fairly interesting construction at my website:
http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html
that could be meaningful to you. As far as I know this is a newly discovered construction. It is very difficult to avoid a mechanical analysis. There is no reason that it should not extend into higher dimension. The old problem of relying upon a higher dimension somewhat exists here, in that the resultant shape can be claimed to be n+1 dimensional. Still, the surface itself is flat and the angular freedom which we are accustomed to limiting to 2pi is not necessarily appropriate.

Anyway I have not found a direct application for this thing, but please feel free to use it if it can help. Taking some paper and a coffee can to cut it into a circle, and some cellopahane tape I have built a four-plane that is quite a nice little toy, and as you play with rotors you will see that this thing has quite some dynamics. This is a serious construction but I have shared it in the open and have sort of shelved it in terms of what I work with.

- Tim

Post Reply