Dude, arguing with him is beyond pointless. The only future in that is pain and suffering from repeatedly beating your hands and head to a pulp on the keyboard.
yes i know it is. How annoying is it to have someone keep telling me I am wrong, then expresses exactly the same fucking concept with a different set of words.
It is only a frequency change. Not a speed change. Etc etc etc.
YOU WROTE
Quote:
if it 'should' speed up, it becomes blue shifted. This is the way it works....
So when I wrote
Quote:
Im sorry, that is wrong. Blue shifts or red shifts are NOT caused by a change in the speed of light, they are caused by a light emitter having relative motion to the observer, which changes the frequency.
well obviously, Im trying to explain something, you're saying Im wrong, then saying the same as what I said in a different set of words. What gives? Is this just a joke to annoy me?
No. I think we have been talking about each other...
What I am trying to argue is that earlier in this thread when you were talking about the speed of light changing radically in space, which is irrelevant and nearly impossible, such that observations of the periods of planets around distant stars CHANGE is not only wrong, it shows a clear lack of understanding the fundamentals of general and special relativity. The periodicity observed in the color light coming from the distant solar systems is built ON TOP of the (nearly) constant relativistic changes imparted by gravity.
No. I think we have been talking about each other...
What I am trying to argue is that earlier in this thread when you were talking about the speed of light changing radically in space, which is irrelevant and nearly impossible, such that observations of the periods of planets around distant stars CHANGE is not only wrong, it shows a clear lack of understanding the fundamentals of general and special relativity. The periodicity observed in the color light coming from the distant solar systems is built ON TOP of the (nearly) constant relativistic changes imparted by gravity.
I thought I went to great lengths to try to explain that wherever you measure the speed of light in space, it will always be the same. I'll use your description (between asterix) to hopefully clarify my point.
What I am trying to express is that if you use the local *stretching of the space-time metric in the presence of a gravitational field* as a "scale" to measure c in another place with a different local metric, then you would *theoretically* get faster than c readings for light if *stretching of the space-time metric in the presence of a gravitational field* is less than your "scale metric". I know it is impossible to do and I've said that, - if you went to the other system and measured c in its local space-time gravitational metric, you would get the standard reading for c.
Here is the question you need to answer in your thought experiment:
How can the observed periodicity of the redshift of light from a distant solar system be affected by gravity AT ALL?
You will find, if you think it through, that it would require a super strong periodic gravitational source between the solar system and the observer. There is NO OTHER WAY the periodicity can be affected.
Here is the question you need to answer in your thought experiment:
How can the observed periodicity of the redshift of light from a distant solar system be affected by gravity AT ALL?
It Cannot! - but then I am not arguing that it is!
Quote:
You will find, if you think it through, that it would require a super strong periodic gravitational source between the solar system and the observer. There is NO OTHER WAY the periodicity can be affected.
I am drawing a picture to try to help explain my words. Hang on!
Aren't you saying that the periods of the planets we are observing are wrong because the information somehow is getting compressed?
No, its not wrong as such, clearly if were measuring 3 day orbitals, then 3 days it is in our frame of reference. Im questioning the possibility that if we went there and we were in a different frame of reference, then we might not measure 3 days - with 2 options..
1) If we take (abstract) the gravitational metric from Earth and go to the star, we would find that although it measures 3 days on the 'Earth' scale, because we are now in a different space-time metric, the actual orbital period in that space-time metric does not correspond to 3 earth days.
or
2) If we went to the star and measured 3 days in their gravitational metric, then we would not measure 3 Earth days if we looked back at our own planet from the gravitational metric we were now in.
Um. What? The observer is measuring light in his own local environment, not light in some distant environment.
I really don't see how any of this makes a difference.
well that might be getting to my point...
What does it look like if we measure light using the metric of our local system abstracted onto a far away distant one that is under different influences????
That is what relativity is about -- being able to change frames of reference based upon speed and gravitational fields.
The corrections are usually very very small -- the planet closest to the star isn't experiencing relativistic speeds, but is deep enough in the star's gravitational well to see some change in click of a clock compared to say earth, but is that even relevant. The time it takes for the planet to go around its star is only going to be slightly different than the three days we observe. Only near black holes do things become significant on such time scales.
That is what relativity is about -- being able to change frames of reference based upon speed and gravitational fields.
The corrections are usually very very small -- the planet closest to the star isn't experiencing relativistic speeds, but is deep enough in the star's gravitational well to see some change in click of a clock compared to say earth, but is that even relevant. The time it takes for the planet to go around its star is only going to be slightly different than the three days we observe. Only near black holes do things become significant on such time scales.
great! were getting somewhere.
But I wonder just how much gravitational difference there must be between our system and the system were discussing.
The planet must have a huge mass - and spin like a bitch to keep intact while so near to its star, and with huge mass comes huge gravity. And the star must have enormous mass to hold on to such a rapidly moving huge mass. I wonder what the frame dragging is like in this setup? Tidal locking???
What does it look like if we measure light using the metric of our local system abstracted onto a far away distant one that is under different influences????
Gravitational warping of light notwithstanding, I happen to think the observational astronomers have accounted for all these factors. Note the observations in our own Milky Way galaxy of the supermassive black hole at it's center, and the objects orbiting it, some with very high eccentricities and relative speed changes (highest at closest approach).
Note also that most (if not all (?)) of these extrasolar planets are massive and orbiting stars within ~100l LY of our Sun.
There was an interesting show on "The Science Channel" last night on just this subject. In the 80's and early 90's they were looking for solar systems like our own with gas giants with orbital periods of 10-30 years, they didn't find any (in that timeframe). The first ones they did confirm had orbital periods much less then our gas giants, it came as a big surprise. They also talked to an astrophysicist (asian) who developed a theory (spiraling inward) to explain the short orbital periods.
It is set to be 1 metre long when set in Earth's relativistic frame. It is magic because relativity has no effect on it, always measuring 1 Earth metre wherever it is in space.
Suppose we go into deep space deviod of space-time warping and measure the length of an imaginary EMF wave that has a *relativistic* local length of 1m. What does this measure on the magic Earth rule?
Gravitational warping of light notwithstanding, I happen to think the observational astronomers have accounted for all these factors. Note the observations in our own Milky Way galaxy of the supermassive black hole at it's center, and the objects orbiting it, some with very high eccentricities and relative speed changes (highest at closest approach).
Note also that most (if not all (?)) of these extrasolar planets are massive and orbiting stars within ~100l LY of our Sun.
There was an interesting show on "The Science Channel" last night on just this subject. In the 80's and early 90's they were looking for solar systems like our own with gas giants with orbital periods of 10-30 years, they didn't find any (in that timeframe). The first ones they did confirm had orbital periods much less then our gas giants, it came as a big surprise. They also talked to an astrophysicist (asian) who developed a theory (spiraling inward) to explain the short orbital periods.
Its not suprising they dont find them, these freakish planets we have been discussing only block about 1% of the light from the parent star even when being so close and so massive, I would guess that the amount of light Jupiter blocks from our star to a distant observer is crazy small undetectable, like 0.000000001%.
But I wonder just how much gravitational difference there must be between our system and the system were discussing.
The planet must have a huge mass - and spin like a bitch to keep intact while so near to its star, and with huge mass comes huge gravity. And the star must have enormous mass to hold on to such a rapidly moving huge mass. I wonder what the frame dragging is like in this setup? Tidal locking???
Comments
Dude, arguing with him is beyond pointless. The only future in that is pain and suffering from repeatedly beating your hands and head to a pulp on the keyboard.
yes i know it is. How annoying is it to have someone keep telling me I am wrong, then expresses exactly the same fucking concept with a different set of words.
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
It is only a frequency change. Not a speed change. Etc etc etc.
Marc...
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
It is only a frequency change. Not a speed change. Etc etc etc.
YOU WROTE
if it 'should' speed up, it becomes blue shifted. This is the way it works....
So when I wrote
Im sorry, that is wrong. Blue shifts or red shifts are NOT caused by a change in the speed of light, they are caused by a light emitter having relative motion to the observer, which changes the frequency.
HOW CAN I MAKE MYSELF MORE COMPREHENSIBLE???"
Your reading comprehension is clearly negligible.
well obviously, Im trying to explain something, you're saying Im wrong, then saying the same as what I said in a different set of words. What gives? Is this just a joke to annoy me?
What I am trying to argue is that earlier in this thread when you were talking about the speed of light changing radically in space, which is irrelevant and nearly impossible, such that observations of the periods of planets around distant stars CHANGE is not only wrong, it shows a clear lack of understanding the fundamentals of general and special relativity. The periodicity observed in the color light coming from the distant solar systems is built ON TOP of the (nearly) constant relativistic changes imparted by gravity.
No. I think we have been talking about each other...
What I am trying to argue is that earlier in this thread when you were talking about the speed of light changing radically in space, which is irrelevant and nearly impossible, such that observations of the periods of planets around distant stars CHANGE is not only wrong, it shows a clear lack of understanding the fundamentals of general and special relativity. The periodicity observed in the color light coming from the distant solar systems is built ON TOP of the (nearly) constant relativistic changes imparted by gravity.
I thought I went to great lengths to try to explain that wherever you measure the speed of light in space, it will always be the same. I'll use your description (between asterix) to hopefully clarify my point.
What I am trying to express is that if you use the local *stretching of the space-time metric in the presence of a gravitational field* as a "scale" to measure c in another place with a different local metric, then you would *theoretically* get faster than c readings for light if *stretching of the space-time metric in the presence of a gravitational field* is less than your "scale metric". I know it is impossible to do and I've said that, - if you went to the other system and measured c in its local space-time gravitational metric, you would get the standard reading for c.
OK so far?
Here is the question you need to answer in your thought experiment:
How can the observed periodicity of the redshift of light from a distant solar system be affected by gravity AT ALL?
You will find, if you think it through, that it would require a super strong periodic gravitational source between the solar system and the observer. There is NO OTHER WAY the periodicity can be affected.
You haven't said anything new.
Here is the question you need to answer in your thought experiment:
How can the observed periodicity of the redshift of light from a distant solar system be affected by gravity AT ALL?
It Cannot! - but then I am not arguing that it is!
You will find, if you think it through, that it would require a super strong periodic gravitational source between the solar system and the observer. There is NO OTHER WAY the periodicity can be affected.
I am drawing a picture to try to help explain my words. Hang on!
Aren't you saying that the periods of the planets we are observing are wrong because the information somehow is getting compressed?
I really don't see how any of this makes a difference.
I am so confused....
Aren't you saying that the periods of the planets we are observing are wrong because the information somehow is getting compressed?
No, its not wrong as such, clearly if were measuring 3 day orbitals, then 3 days it is in our frame of reference. Im questioning the possibility that if we went there and we were in a different frame of reference, then we might not measure 3 days - with 2 options..
1) If we take (abstract) the gravitational metric from Earth and go to the star, we would find that although it measures 3 days on the 'Earth' scale, because we are now in a different space-time metric, the actual orbital period in that space-time metric does not correspond to 3 earth days.
or
2) If we went to the star and measured 3 days in their gravitational metric, then we would not measure 3 Earth days if we looked back at our own planet from the gravitational metric we were now in.
Um. What? The observer is measuring light in his own local environment, not light in some distant environment.
I really don't see how any of this makes a difference.
well that might be getting to my point...
What does it look like if we measure light using the metric of our local system abstracted onto a far away distant one that is under different influences????
The corrections are usually very very small -- the planet closest to the star isn't experiencing relativistic speeds, but is deep enough in the star's gravitational well to see some change in click of a clock compared to say earth, but is that even relevant. The time it takes for the planet to go around its star is only going to be slightly different than the three days we observe. Only near black holes do things become significant on such time scales.
That is what relativity is about -- being able to change frames of reference based upon speed and gravitational fields.
The corrections are usually very very small -- the planet closest to the star isn't experiencing relativistic speeds, but is deep enough in the star's gravitational well to see some change in click of a clock compared to say earth, but is that even relevant. The time it takes for the planet to go around its star is only going to be slightly different than the three days we observe. Only near black holes do things become significant on such time scales.
great! were getting somewhere.
But I wonder just how much gravitational difference there must be between our system and the system were discussing.
The planet must have a huge mass - and spin like a bitch to keep intact while so near to its star, and with huge mass comes huge gravity. And the star must have enormous mass to hold on to such a rapidly moving huge mass. I wonder what the frame dragging is like in this setup? Tidal locking???
heres the planet!
well that might be getting to my point...
What does it look like if we measure light using the metric of our local system abstracted onto a far away distant one that is under different influences????
Gravitational warping of light notwithstanding, I happen to think the observational astronomers have accounted for all these factors. Note the observations in our own Milky Way galaxy of the supermassive black hole at it's center, and the objects orbiting it, some with very high eccentricities and relative speed changes (highest at closest approach).
Note also that most (if not all (?)) of these extrasolar planets are massive and orbiting stars within ~100l LY of our Sun.
There was an interesting show on "The Science Channel" last night on just this subject. In the 80's and early 90's they were looking for solar systems like our own with gas giants with orbital periods of 10-30 years, they didn't find any (in that timeframe). The first ones they did confirm had orbital periods much less then our gas giants, it came as a big surprise. They also talked to an astrophysicist (asian) who developed a theory (spiraling inward) to explain the short orbital periods.
Perhaps when NASA gets Kepler Space Observatory or James Webb Space Telescope they'll have more luck with solar systems like our own and/or rocky extrasolar planets.
It's all a matter of instrument resolution.
Suppose we have a magic rule...
It is set to be 1 metre long when set in Earth's relativistic frame. It is magic because relativity has no effect on it, always measuring 1 Earth metre wherever it is in space.
Suppose we go into deep space deviod of space-time warping and measure the length of an imaginary EMF wave that has a *relativistic* local length of 1m. What does this measure on the magic Earth rule?
Gravitational warping of light notwithstanding, I happen to think the observational astronomers have accounted for all these factors. Note the observations in our own Milky Way galaxy of the supermassive black hole at it's center, and the objects orbiting it, some with very high eccentricities and relative speed changes (highest at closest approach).
Note also that most (if not all (?)) of these extrasolar planets are massive and orbiting stars within ~100l LY of our Sun.
There was an interesting show on "The Science Channel" last night on just this subject. In the 80's and early 90's they were looking for solar systems like our own with gas giants with orbital periods of 10-30 years, they didn't find any (in that timeframe). The first ones they did confirm had orbital periods much less then our gas giants, it came as a big surprise. They also talked to an astrophysicist (asian) who developed a theory (spiraling inward) to explain the short orbital periods.
Perhaps when NASA gets Kepler Space Observatory or James Webb Space Telescope they'll have more luck with solar systems like our own and/or rocky extrasolar planets.
It's all a matter of instrument resolution.
Its not suprising they dont find them, these freakish planets we have been discussing only block about 1% of the light from the parent star even when being so close and so massive, I would guess that the amount of light Jupiter blocks from our star to a distant observer is crazy small undetectable, like 0.000000001%.
great! were getting somewhere.
But I wonder just how much gravitational difference there must be between our system and the system were discussing.
The planet must have a huge mass - and spin like a bitch to keep intact while so near to its star, and with huge mass comes huge gravity. And the star must have enormous mass to hold on to such a rapidly moving huge mass. I wonder what the frame dragging is like in this setup? Tidal locking???
heres the planet!
Not massive enough.