The Behavior of Light in the presence of a Gravitational Field
Introduction
I will begin this introduction in the manner that I feel is the most appropriate. I must pay homage to Albert Einstein and his views on the universe we live in. If it were not for his ideas, I would not have been able to gain a clearer photo of the true state of the universe. I understand the monumental task I am undertaking with my papers "The Nothing Universe", "Dimensions of Time", "Time tour Not Possible?", and "Gravity Hypothesis". I am attempting to rewrite our view of the Universe by construction upon Einstein's thoughts on the subject. I am also trying to explicate some of his misconceptions on the true state of the universe, gravity, time, and how they all review to one another. In this paper I will be attempting to explicate why light bends nearby a star, in this case, our Sun; in order to allow us to view a star that is underground behind our sun. Before I begin, I would like to ad that I can conceptually understand how Einstein came to his conclusions. At first glance they would appear to be dead on accurate descriptions of reality. I do not in any way claim that the work that has been done in reserve of Relativity is wrong. On the contrary, I believe the math as well as the experimentation is accurate and correct. I would have to be to have stood the test of time. What I am claiming is that this supporting evidence has been attributed to in-accurate conclusions. Much the same way that evidence can point overwhelmingly to the wrong suspect. That being said, I will always contend that I stood on Einstein's shoulders as he stood on the shoulders of great minds before him.
Understanding Gravity
In order to fully understand this hypothesis, I will have to give an overview of my Gravity Hypothesis. In that paper, I contend that Gravity is not a manifestation of curved Space/Time. I do not even believe this fictional fabric exists. Space is a vacuum. This means that nothing occupies the spaces in the middle of the stars, except for comets, asteroids, planets, space dust, etc. Space is the absence of matter where I believe matter used to be. For this belief you will have to read my paper on a "Nothing Universe". In that paper I hypothesized that the this universe used to be composed of a perfect atom in which all free energy was locked up tight. There was no free space in this Nothing Universe, and the only thing that existed was this one perfect atom. So, when the "Big Bang" occurred; what I call "The Event", it was not a singularity that extensive outward. Instead, it was a chain reaction taking place within a sea of atoms. In this case, the Nothing Atom. This expansion is taking place today at speeds greater than that of the speed of light, and if you tour far adequate out into space you will come upon a wall of energy that I have termed the "Creation Wave".
So now we have our universe which in the starting consisted of nothing more than empty space, free energy, and particles. These particles I refer to are protons, electrons, and neutrons. Their counterparts having phased into the anti matter universe, which I contend behaves in exactly the same way that ours does. Its just made up of anti matter. In our matter universe protons that were flying nearby attracted an electron. Over and over again a proton would trap an electron and eventually we had huge quantities of hydrogen arrival together to create very dense pockets of hydrogen in space. Eventually, so much hydrogen came together that a star was born. All over our young universe this process occurred. Withing these stars the next evolution of matter took place, helium. A star will go through its life cycle and eventually explode or throw off its outer layers providing new material for the birth of new stars. Now, conceive of this event occurring countless times all across the young universe. Within each one of these stars, new elements are being created that will provide us with our periodic table of elements.
The temperatures needed to create these new elements are gift within the core of these stars. This is why you will sometimes hear scientists state that we are in fact made of star dust. In a way that is very true. Evolution is a beautiful thing and a clear photo can be gained from this analogy. Hydrogen forms stars, which lead to helium and the evolution of more elements. These elements come together to form planets nearby a star, and on one of these planets something new happens. The elements gift form a easy singular celled organism and life has begun! Now we have the evolution of life. The singular celled organism becomes multi-celled, which leads to jelly fish, squid, and then to fish; which leads to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, you get the picture. It is a beautiful thing to know that all of this began with the easy merger of protons and electrons! But I digress.
Back to curved space/time, I said before that I believe it does not exist. The idea that time is a thing that can be combined with space, seems too far fetched and involved to me. Time is a human belief for measuring events, nothing more. Space is what exists within the nothing universe and represents the absence of matter. I believe that the manifestation of gravity can be attributed to a much more well-known and easy concept. This easy belief is magnetism. Opposites attract and like charges repel and so forth. We can contemplate this every time we look at a compass or use a magnet, however; we can also contemplate this when an object falls to earth or by looking at our solar system, galaxy, etc. What we traditionally think of magnetism is quite small when compared to the universe. This is because traditionally we attribute magnetism to small scale events and gravity to large scale events. I say they are one and the same. Gravity is nothing more than the manifestation of magnetism on a macro scale. All matter is made of protons, electrons, and neutrons. These particles form elements which form molecules, which form much of the world nearby us. In the case of a planet, a moon, or a star you have an huge whole of protons and electrons. Neutrons, I believe, do not come into play, because they are neutral particles. For this infer I do not believe they play a part in the manifestation of gravity. In order to gain a clearer photo we will think the Earth as it is connected to us and the objects nearby us.
Everyone knows that when you drop objects of differing weights they will fall at the same rate. This means that gravity is a constant. The earth is pulling on you with the same effect that it is pulling on a pebble or a feather. The infer for this has to do more with the protons and electrons contained within the earth than it does with the protons and neutrons contained within you, the pebble or the feather. This, I believe, is due to the huge whole of particles contained within the earth vs the whole of particles in you or any object on the earth. In order for my hypothesis to work we have to assume that one force is slightly stronger than another. The curious force has to be slightly stronger than the repulsive force. This is why objects fall down, rather than up. If the opposite were true then we would spend our time gradually drifting out into space. The key is scale. A proton and an electron will attract one another, because each one has a specific charge. A man and another man of the same size will exert gravity on one another, but very minimal. The unlikeness is a variety of particles vs a particle and a particle. Think of it this way, "Magnetism is to Gravity, as Physics is to part Physics". Each field is dictated by how objects behave based on scale. The behavior of magnetism on a small scale is somewhat dissimilar on a large scale, "Gravity".
The Earth pulls on all objects with the same strength. The current Gravitational constant is belief to be somewhere nearby 6.693 x 10 to the -11 power. The law of universal gravitation, big G is belief to be the curious force in the middle of two bodies is proportional to the stock of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance in the middle of them.
(www.wikipedia.org/wiki/gravitational_constant) This constant is not to be confused with Earths gravity (little g) which is calculated by the rate an object accelerates towards the earth as it falls. That whole has been placed at nearby 9.8 m/s2 (meters per second squared). Again I cannot argue with the math and I believe the experiments done in this area are valid. I also believe that in order to have the most accurate calculation of gravity we have to understand what it is and then go from there. A gravitational constant is possible and would relate the true pull of one body over another. I concede that constant to the experts and will agree with the acceptable number. Possibly this constant represents the puny unlikeness in the middle of the forces of attraction and the forces of repulsion with attraction being the stronger force of the two. Then again, there may not be a constant. Possibly this constant only appears to be a constant due to our inability to detect small variations in a gravitational field relative to another gravitational field. If we could stand on the sun and then drop a mountain and a grain of sand and then time there descent, would we detect a difference?
What we know of gravity today, the calculations and observations all hold true and have stood the test of time. I am trying to attribute a bodily cause for gravitation. Instead of viewing gravity as being caused by a warping of the space/time fabric, I am suggesting that we take a moment and look at gravity another way. Then, Possibly the math will have to be tweaked a bit?
Objects are composed of matter and matter is composed of particles. These particles have a charge. Gravity is the "Sum Total" effect of all of these negatively and as a matter of fact expensed particles contained in an object. It does not matter the whole of particles contained within the object that is falling to earth. The only thing that matters is you have a very small object being attracted to a very large object (the earth). The more mass an object contains the greater the whole of gravity. The more similar the masses are then a gravitational equilibrium is met. The greater the unlikeness of mass in the middle of two objects then there is greater imbalance. Velocity also comes into play and explains how objects come to orbit one another. So, you are small compared to the earth and you feel a inescapable whole of gravity while on the earth. On the moon you feel less gravity, but you are larger compared to the moon vs the earth. So;
1) A planet to man interaction will effect in a strong gravity in the middle of the two objects.
2) A planet to planet interaction will effect in a weak gravity in the middle of the two objects.
3) A planet to moon interaction will effect in a medium gravity in the middle of the two.
4) A Star to planet interaction will effect in a medium strong gravity in the middle of the two.
It all depends upon the mass of the object relative to another object as well as the velocity of the object, and the distance in the middle of the two objects. An object can pass by the earth far adequate away to feel its gravity, but if its velocity is great adequate then it will continue on its course. The trajectory of the object will depend upon its speed and distance away from the influencing body.
Keep in mind that the more similar in mass two objects are then the particles of that body comes into play. I said before that even though a man exhibits gravity towards the earth, the earth wins out every time. The influence of the mass of my body is negligible when compared to the pull of the earth on us. However, when the mass is adequate in each object and comparable to the other object, then the molecules of both objects influence how they effect one another. The earth has protons and electrons, the moon has protons and electrons. The protons of the earth are pulling on the electrons of the moon and the protons in the moon feel the presence of the electrons contained within the earth. At the same time the protons of the earth also feel the presence of the protons of the moon.
Similarly, the electrons of the earth also feel the presence of the electrons on the moon. What you end up with is two objects that are trying to get as far away as they can from one another, while at the same time they want to come together. An equilibrium is reached in the middle of these contentious forces and the moon will assume and orbit nearby that body. This scenario does not take into catalogue the velocity of each object relative to one another, which is another factor of how masses orbit one another. It also does not take into catalogue the distance of the two objects from one another. The closer these two masses are to one another the stronger they will feel each others gravity. If they get too close to one another than the two objects will collide due to the fact that the curious force is slightly greater than the repulsive force. This only applies to objects of adequate mass. Objects of puny mass will exhibit very low gravity in the middle of one another. If you have a planet and a rock, then the gravity of the planet is strong and will overpower the weak gravity of the rock. The mass of Earth pulls and repels us with the pull winning out. Our bodies pull and push on the earth as well, but we have very puny mass to as a matter of fact influence the planets gravitational effect in anyway.
Gravity and its influence on Light
So now we come to the heart of the matter. A star that is behind the sun can be seen by us on earth, because the light from that star was bent nearby the sun. Albert Einstein attributed this to the path that light takes across space/time, which is being warped by the Sun's gravitational field. I put forth that the path light takes nearby the sun is due to the influence of the magnetism on the photon. As the beam of light approaches the sun, the photon begins to feel the effect of the protons and electrons contained within the sun. The sum total which represents gravity bends the light from that star so that it bends nearby our sun.
As we all know light is an electromagnetic wave, which is a wave composed of both a magnetic wave and an electric wave. It is also viewed as a particle called a photon. As a light beam approaches the sun it is attracted and repelled by the protons and electrons in the sun. The sum total effect of this, "Gravity" attracts and repels the sun at the same time. Coupled with the speed at which the photon is traveling the beam of light bends nearby the sun. As the light approaches, the photon is both repelled and attracted at the same time. Its velocity wants to carry it right on, but as it gets closer to the sun the repulsion begins to effect the photons trajectory. Since the curious force is greater this will lead to a shorter and sharper bend on the approaching side of the sun and a more gradual slope on the backside of the sun as the particle moves away from the sun. In reality, a constant stream of particles of photons are affected creating an unbroken beam of light that bends nearby the sun and reaches earth. This is how we are able to view light from a distant star that is underground by the sun. The influence of matter in the sun on a beam of light as it approaches is what causes the electromagnetic wave to bend nearby the sun and reach earth.
So what about a black hole? The infer that light cannot escape a black hole is because the curious force is great adequate that the velocity of light cannot overcome it. The effect is a beam of light that bends, but finally will move into the black hole. This is assuming the light beam passes close adequate to the black hole. If a beam of light passes far adequate away from a black hole its velocity will overcome the curious force and will bend sharply nearby the black hole. Theoretically it would then be possible to see a star that is in a false position in the sky if its light reached earth. It may be possible for two stars that appear in the night sky to as a matter of fact be the light from only one star. The light from the real star that is placed in its actual position, and the bent light that passed by the black hole that is from the same star. This light will cause a phantom star to appear in the night sky. I am not stating that when you look out your window at night you will see one of these phantom stars. I am only stating that it is hypothetically possible.
Conclusion
Particles contained within matter are responsible for the existence of gravity. It is the influence of matter over matter interactions based on velocity and distance. There may or may not be a constant, or if gravity is not a constant; then at the gift we are unable to detect this difference. In general because we can only perform these experiments here on earth. It would as a matter of fact be nice to have a large rocky body with no atmosphere. The weight of the climate above us along with the drag of our climate on falling objects will effect the outcome of these experiments. In order to prove this hypothesis, an experiment needs to be done to detect the puny unlikeness in the curious force vs the repulsive force. It would also help to contemplate a phantom star, which is a star in the night sky that is not as a matter of fact where it appears to be. For the same infer that light bends nearby the sun to show us a star that is underground behind the sun. Einstein was not wrong, he just attributed an actual outcome to the wrong preclusion.
right here
Gravity & Light
right here
