more GRAVITY?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
perpetual motion
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

more GRAVITY?

Unread post by perpetual motion » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:35 pm

http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/

Ah, come on.

Just a wee bit of humor. If we take all the craniums of all the scientists and fill them with liquid
lead, then velcro a north pole in one ear and a south pole in the other ear and then screw a light
bulb in each ear, what do you think we would get.
Oh ok, they would still be attached to their bodies.

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by D_Archer » Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:46 am

There is no such thing as 'neutron stars'.

Why not just use intrinsic redshift.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by willendure » Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:17 am

Interesting piece there on the Shapiro effect:

http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/The-Shapiro-Effect.htm

User avatar
comingfrom
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by comingfrom » Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:20 pm

It begs a question.
There is simply no mechanism for accelerating a photon once its velocity has been reduced by a gravitational force! With every gravitational force it encounters, no matter how small, a photon will continue to decelerate and lose energy. I call this “gravity drag”, which was also named by famous astronomer Fritz Zwicky many years ago.
If gravity cannot accelerate a photon, then how does it decelerate a photon?

Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, they are both a change in velocity.
Just opposite vectors of the force which is causing the change in velocity.
Isn't it?

~Paul

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by willendure » Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:47 pm

comingfrom wrote:It begs a question.
There is simply no mechanism for accelerating a photon once its velocity has been reduced by a gravitational force! With every gravitational force it encounters, no matter how small, a photon will continue to decelerate and lose energy. I call this “gravity drag”, which was also named by famous astronomer Fritz Zwicky many years ago.
If gravity cannot accelerate a photon, then how does it decelerate a photon?

Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, they are both a change in velocity.
Just opposite vectors of the force which is causing the change in velocity.
Isn't it?
Gravity can accelerate a photon. Measuring blue-shift of light being projected down a tower was the basic outline of the Pound-Rebka experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

I am not sure if the Shapiro effect is different to this though?

LAShaffer
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:28 am

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by LAShaffer » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:08 pm

Can anybody tell me where in their calculations they accounted for the velocity differential between the top and bottom of the tower?

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by D_Archer » Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:29 am

LAShaffer wrote:Can anybody tell me where in their calculations they accounted for the velocity differential between the top and bottom of the tower?
Some good reading>
An Explosion of the Pound-Rebka Experiment: http://milesmathis.com/pound.html by Miles Mathis

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

LAShaffer
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:28 am

Re: more GRAVITY?

Unread post by LAShaffer » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:29 pm

That paper says nothing about my question. The top of the tower has a demonstrably different velocity than the bottom of the tower.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest