Scientific American: Light losing energy!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Light from 9 giga·years ago had to climb out of deeper gravity wells.
Next: Lorentz factor in rotating black holes
From: Brad Guth on 28 Jun 2010 19:05 On Jun 28, 3:18 pm, JeffRelf.F-M.FM @. wrote: > Light from 9 giga·years ago had to climb out of deeper gravity wells, so it's more red·shifted. As you go back farther in time, by giga·years, the universe is more and more dense, less dissipated, less spent, more predictable. OnceeXergyis spent, that's it, it NEVER COMES BACK. "Scientific American: Light losing energy!" In other words of Mormon Jeff, the weak force of gravity is bogus? ~ BG
From: Darwin123 on 29 Jun 2010 20:27 On Jun 27, 6:29 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message > > news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest > part of the gravitational field close to the star. This is incorrect. There has never been a red shift measured for star light grazing the edge of a star. You are confused with the bending of light as it passes near a star. The spectrum of the star after it bent is the same as the spectrum of light before the bend. There is no loss of energy associated with the bending of the light. If energy is lost close to the star, it is restored far from the star. Of course, I haven't gone through all the scientific literature. Perhaps you have gone through all the scientific literature. If you happen to know a study which shows that most of the red shift occurs close to a star, please share the citation with us. If you don't, some will think you misread the solar eclipse investigation that first confirmed general relativity.
From: Double-A on 29 Jun 2010 20:38 On Jun 29, 5:27 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 6:29 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message > > >news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest > > part of the gravitational field close to the star. > > This is incorrect. There has never been a red shift measured for > star light grazing the edge of a star. You are confused with the > bending of light as it passes near a star. The spectrum of the star > after it bent is the same as the spectrum of light before the bend. > There is no loss of energy associated with the bending of the light. > If energy is lost close to the star, it is restored far from the star. > Of course, I haven't gone through all the scientific literature. > Perhaps you have gone through all the scientific literature. If you > happen to know a study which shows that most of the red shift occurs > close to a star, please share the citation with us. If you don't, some > will think you misread the solar eclipse investigation that first > confirmed general relativity. I was talking about the light coming up from the surface of the star itself, not light grazing it. Where would expect the most red shift to occur? Close to the star where gravity is strong, or far from the star where gravity is weak? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift Double-A
From: Brad Guth on 30 Jun 2010 02:13 On Jun 29, 5:38 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 5:27 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 27, 6:29 am, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message > > > >news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > > No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the strongest > > > part of the gravitational field close to the star. > > > This is incorrect. There has never been a red shift measured for > > star light grazing the edge of a star. You are confused with the > > bending of light as it passes near a star. The spectrum of the star > > after it bent is the same as the spectrum of light before the bend. > > There is no loss of energy associated with the bending of the light. > > If energy is lost close to the star, it is restored far from the star. > > Of course, I haven't gone through all the scientific literature. > > Perhaps you have gone through all the scientific literature. If you > > happen to know a study which shows that most of the red shift occurs > > close to a star, please share the citation with us. If you don't, some > > will think you misread the solar eclipse investigation that first > > confirmed general relativity. > > I was talking about the light coming up from the surface of the star > itself, not light grazing it. Where would expect the most red shift > to occur? Close to the star where gravity is strong, or far from the > star where gravity is weak? > > See: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift > > Double-A Too bad the use of Sirius(B) is always taboo for this kind of photon physics. ~ BG
From: harald on 30 Jun 2010 03:49
On Jun 27, 12:29 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message > > news:ac0eaf95-322f-4fae-88d0-1589f9bdc870(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... I could not locate that, nor the article. > No, most of the red shift happens while the light is in the > strongest part of the gravitational field close to the star. "Most"? As far as we know, *all* red shift is due to difference in emission frequency. > The question is > whether the light red shifts because it is sapped of energy by the > star's gravity as it moves away from it, or it a result of the > difference in time frame between the star's surface and the observer. > If you have a pulse generated by a ticking clock, the pulse will seem > to be slower if the clock is placed on a star's surface where time is > more dilated. When atoms emit light of a characteristic frequency, it > follows that they would emit light of a slightly lower frequency if > located on the Star's surface. So is it one or the other, or is a > little of both going on? As Einstein pointed out, no wave crests can get lost in transit (according to any wave model - which is the basis of both SRT and GRT). Cheers, Harald > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > So much utter trash is posted here as science that > you'd think the poster is a professional dumpster-diver. > > Wait a tick.....He IS ! > > Red shift is a product of relative speed. Period. |