| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
11 Mar 2005 10:12:37 PM |
| Object: |
Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
There is an infinite redshift at the event horizon of a BH.
Light there would have an infinite wavelength and zero energy.
Energyless Light?
What's more interesting is that if a photon is emitted
close enough to a EH it could redshift light so much
that the size of the light's wavelength is greater
than the size of the universe.
This is the Redshift Paradox.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 04:40:29 AM |
|
|
<macromitch@internetCDS.com> wrote in message news:1110600757.199338.87500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
There is an infinite redshift at the event horizon of a BH.
Light there would have an infinite wavelength and zero energy.
Energyless Light?
I don't think this will help, but I'll try anyway.
Light has frequency, energy and wavelength, and it can
be fully characterized by any of these.
The energy proportional to the frequency.
The wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency.
Higher frequency => higher energy and shorter wavelength.
Lower frequency => lower energy and longer wavelength.
When you consider instances of light with smaller and smaller,
frequency, the energy will get smaller and smaller, and the
wavelength will get larger and larger.
When you finally "reach" zero frequency, you have zero
energy, and the light is gone, so technically you can't talk
about wavelength anymore. But if you insist on still using
the formula and the rule
"Lower frequency => lower energy and longer wavelength",
then you could pretend that you have "infinite wavelength".
So, engineers and physicists often describe the
"Absence of Light"
as
"Light with zero frequency" or
"Light with zero energy" or
"Light with infinite wavelength".
It all just means "No light".
This is a matter of language.
You seem to have a problem with this.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 11:59:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
[snip crap]
Hey schmuck, why did you post this trash twice?
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 09:44:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
There is an infinite redshift at the event horizon of a BH.
Light there would have an infinite wavelength and zero energy.
Energyless Light?
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value, and is
specific to the source and observer being compared. Light emitted near
the horizon by a monchromatic light source has its usual frequency and
wavelength to a co-located observer, and is redshifted from its usual
value to a distant observer. As the source approaches the horizon, the
frequency and wavelength remain unchanged to an observer remaining
co-located with the source, but the redshift increases without bound to
the distant observer.
So there is _never_ any "energyless light" to an observer co-located
with the source, and that is what counts. The fact that the distant
observer sees something else is merely a curiosity of this specific
manifold.
Interpose a light-absorbing object between source and observer,
and the observer will similarly not be able to observe the
light. No distant observer can be guaranteed to be able to
observe the light. <shrug>
What's more interesting is that if a photon is emitted
close enough to a EH it could redshift light so much
that the size of the light's wavelength is greater
than the size of the universe.
If you actually understood photons you would realize this is not true,
and is not a problem. If you re-phrase it in terms of emitted light
waves, the problem disappears, and there is merely a final wavecrest
observed by the distant observer. <shrug>
This is the Redshift Paradox.
In the sense of "paradox" meaning a seemingly-contradictory situation
that upon analysis becomes resolved, OK. There is no contradiction or
problem here. And usually students advanced enough to consider this are
also advanced enough to understand the resolution, so it is not really
given a name.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 12:53:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:44:48 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
There is an infinite redshift at the event horizon of a BH.
Light there would have an infinite wavelength and zero energy.
Energyless Light?
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value, and is
specific to the source and observer being compared. Light emitted near
the horizon by a monchromatic light source has its usual frequency and
wavelength to a co-located observer, and is redshifted from its usual
value to a distant observer. As the source approaches the horizon, the
frequency and wavelength remain unchanged to an observer remaining
co-located with the source, but the redshift increases without bound to
the distant observer.
It seems to me there needs to be some clarification.
What is "usual frequency"? The same frequency as if no gravity?
Or that the clock brought along down into the well agrees with the
free field comparison?
And does c remain constant so L =c/f is the same?
But doesn't relativity hold that clocks run slower in a gravity well?
Wouldn't that impact some of the above? Please fill in some gaps.
snip, sorry
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Mr. Dual Space
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 01:35:11 PM |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:44:48 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value, and is
specific to the source and observer being compared. Light emitted near
the horizon by a monchromatic light source has its usual frequency and
wavelength to a co-located observer, and is redshifted from its usual
value to a distant observer. As the source approaches the horizon, the
frequency and wavelength remain unchanged to an observer remaining
co-located with the source, but the redshift increases without bound to
the distant observer.
It seems to me there needs to be some clarification.
What is "usual frequency"? The same frequency as if no gravity?
Or that the clock brought along down into the well agrees with the
free field comparison?
By "usual frequency and wavelength" I meant the values a collocated
observer would measure. This is independent of the position of source
and observer in any "gravity well".
And does c remain constant so L =c/f is the same?
In vacuum, the speed of light is c, which remains constant for any LOCAL
measurement using standard clocks and rulers.
But doesn't relativity hold that clocks run slower in a gravity well?
Not really. The _COMPARISON_ of clocks at different heights in a
gravitational potential implies that the lower one "ticks slower" than
the upper one. But both are standard clocks and tick at their usual rate
when measured by a collocated observer. It is inappropriate to ascribe
this to any change in the "tick rate" of any clock; it is best
interpreted as a manifestation of spacetime curvature.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 08:38:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:35:11 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:44:48 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value, and is
specific to the source and observer being compared. Light emitted near
the horizon by a monchromatic light source has its usual frequency and
wavelength to a co-located observer, and is redshifted from its usual
value to a distant observer. As the source approaches the horizon, the
frequency and wavelength remain unchanged to an observer remaining
co-located with the source, but the redshift increases without bound to
the distant observer.
It seems to me there needs to be some clarification.
What is "usual frequency"? The same frequency as if no gravity?
Or that the clock brought along down into the well agrees with the
free field comparison?
By "usual frequency and wavelength" I meant the values a collocated
observer would measure. This is independent of the position of source
and observer in any "gravity well".
This definition is immediately impotent. An observer as a minimum must
be an operator of instrumentation. Therefore, to check frequency, he
needs another clock for comparison. And it needs to be brought down
into the well like the radiator is.
So if the radiating clock runs slow, so, almost inevitably, will the
master clock. They will track automatically. Thus if there exists a
shrinkage k, the comparison is
f/F = kf/kF = f0/F0
The observer cannot make any statement about the frequency except to
say it's the same, as you have. The statement is without merit. New
information is required for a true inquiry.
It is entirely possible that the well clock is in fact retarded by z
without contradicting your premise. My theory says that for several
good reasons, the clock is indeed retarded by z.
And does c remain constant so L =c/f is the same?
In vacuum, the speed of light is c, which remains constant for any LOCAL
measurement using standard clocks and rulers.
But doesn't relativity hold that clocks run slower in a gravity well?
Not really. The _COMPARISON_ of clocks at different heights in a
gravitational potential implies that the lower one "ticks slower" than
the upper one. But both are standard clocks and tick at their usual rate
when measured by a collocated observer. It is inappropriate to ascribe
this to any change in the "tick rate" of any clock; it is best
interpreted as a manifestation of spacetime curvature.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Mr. Dual Space
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 08:15:30 AM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:079731pk2ej3flaali1ejlsmhu98s0b4hn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:35:11 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:44:48 GMT, Tom Roberts
<tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value, and
is
specific to the source and observer being compared. Light emitted
near
the horizon by a monchromatic light source has its usual
frequency and
wavelength to a co-located observer, and is redshifted from its
usual
value to a distant observer. As the source approaches the
horizon, the
frequency and wavelength remain unchanged to an observer
remaining
co-located with the source, but the redshift increases without
bound to
the distant observer.
It seems to me there needs to be some clarification.
What is "usual frequency"? The same frequency as if no gravity?
Or that the clock brought along down into the well agrees with
the
free field comparison?
By "usual frequency and wavelength" I meant the values a collocated
observer would measure. This is independent of the position of
source
and observer in any "gravity well".
This definition is immediately impotent. An observer as a minimum
must
be an operator of instrumentation. Therefore, to check frequency, he
needs another clock for comparison. And it needs to be brought down
into the well like the radiator is.
So if the radiating clock runs slow, so, almost inevitably, will
the
master clock.
As is so often the case, you miss the point entirely.
The *definition* of proper time is that it is what is measured by a
clock in the hands of the observer, wherever he might be.
They will track automatically.
I'm glad you realise that.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 09:20:13 PM |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:35:11 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:44:48 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value, and is
specific to the source and observer being compared. Light emitted near
the horizon by a monchromatic light source has its usual frequency and
wavelength to a co-located observer, and is red shifted from its usual
value to a distant observer. As the source approaches the horizon, the
frequency and wavelength remain unchanged to an observer remaining
co-located with the source, but the redshift increases without bound to
the distant observer.
It seems to me there needs to be some clarification.
What is "usual frequency"? The same frequency as if no gravity?
Or that the clock brought along down into the well agrees with the
free field comparison?
By "usual frequency and wavelength" I meant the values a collocated
observer would measure. This is independent of the position of source
and observer in any "gravity well".
This definition is immediately impotent. An observer as a minimum must
be an operator of instrumentation. Therefore, to check frequency, he
needs another clock for comparison. And it needs to be brought down
into the well like the radiator is.
So if the radiating clock runs slow, so, almost inevitably, will the
master clock. They will track automatically. Thus if there exists a
shrinkage k, the comparison is
f/F = kf/kF = f0/F0
The observer cannot make any statement about the frequency except to
say it's the same, as you have. The statement is without merit. New
information is required for a true inquiry.
It is entirely possible that the well clock is in fact retarded by z
without contradicting your premise. My theory says that for several
good reasons, the clock is indeed retarded by z.
John--You trying to invoke some absolute time? Don't!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 09:33:02 PM |
|
|
Sam, "The patterns of curved space time around mass are absolute."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 12:43:28 AM |
|
|
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:35:11 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
By "usual frequency and wavelength" I meant the values a collocated
observer would measure. This is independent of the position of source
and observer in any "gravity well".
This definition is immediately impotent.
Not at all. That _is_ what we do -- we compare clocks by moving a
standard clock right next to the clock to be tested, and then compare
them. How else could you possibly verify that this clock is ticking at
the correct rate?
An observer as a minimum must
be an operator of instrumentation. Therefore, to check frequency, he
needs another clock for comparison. And it needs to be brought down
into the well like the radiator is.
Yes. So why do you think this is "impotent"?
If you want to apply GR and predict the outcome of a comparison of two
clocks that are not collocated, you must know the metric everywhere
along the path used for the comparison, and the influence of the metric
on the signal used for the comparison. For this last, as long as one
uses an electromagnetic signal that influence is well known. But EM
signals are not the only possible method of comparison (e.g. one could
carry a clock, or could fire identical machine gun bullets, or...). Note
that the results of comparing a given pair of clocks via different
methods can be different....
For a weak-field static situation, this reduces to needing
to know only the gravitational potentials at the locations
of the two clocks.
It is entirely possible that the well clock is in fact retarded by z
without contradicting your premise.
In GR it is difficult to be self-consistent while ascribing
gravitational redshift to a change in the clocks (i.e. their tick
rates). It is MUCH easier (and better) to consider it to be due to
spacetime curvature. For instance: how can you claim "this clock is
retarded" when a standard clock right next to it shows it ticks at its
usual (non-"retarded") rate? Remember, please, that standard clocks are
all you have to set a standard for the tick rate of clocks.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 09:42:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:43:28 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:35:11 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com>
wrote:
By "usual frequency and wavelength" I meant the values a collocated
observer would measure. This is independent of the position of source
and observer in any "gravity well".
This definition is immediately impotent.
Not at all. That _is_ what we do -- we compare clocks by moving a
standard clock right next to the clock to be tested, and then compare
them. How else could you possibly verify that this clock is ticking at
the correct rate?
A simpler method would be to take two atomic clocks with counters.
into substantially different gravitational potentils and compare
counts after a long time.
Haefele &Keating used clocks and counters but even after 144,000
seconds (1.66 days) flight time at 10Km the gravity count differences
would calculate out to only 1.2e-12 or 0.17 microseconds.
I am surprised such a simple test has not been conducted. If this were
done at MIT with Pounds & Rebka's 22.5m elevation, it would take 444
times as long or 2 years to get 0.17 microseconds. (??Their results
were immediate??).
An observer as a minimum must
be an operator of instrumentation. Therefore, to check frequency, he
needs another clock for comparison. And it needs to be brought down
into the well like the radiator is.
Yes. So why do you think this is "impotent"?
Er, I think you clipped this from my note:
"So if the radiating clock runs slow, so, almost inevitably, will the
master clock. They will track automatically. Thus if there exists a
shrinkage k, the comparison is
f/F = kf/kF = f0/F0
The observer cannot make any statement about the frequency except to
say it's the same, as you have. The statement is without merit. New
information is required for a true inquiry. "
If you want to apply GR and predict the outcome of a comparison of two
clocks that are not collocated, you must know the metric everywhere
along the path used for the comparison, and the influence of the metric
on the signal used for the comparison.
No I don't. I just calculate the Schw. metric at each end and deduce a
difference in clock rates. This is of course only geometry, not
physics, but it seems to say the clocks at each end have a different
rate.
snip
For a weak-field static situation, this reduces to needing
to know only the gravitational potentials at the locations
of the two clocks.
It is entirely possible that the well clock is in fact retarded by z
without contradicting your premise.
In GR it is difficult to be self-consistent while ascribing
gravitational redshift to a change in the clocks (i.e. their tick
rates). It is MUCH easier (and better) to consider it to be due to
spacetime curvature. For instance: how can you claim "this clock is
retarded" when a standard clock right next to it shows it ticks at its
usual (non-"retarded") rate? Remember, please, that standard clocks are
all you have to set a standard for the tick rate of clocks.
I think we can agree the standard and tested clocks must both be
atomic. There is no way to select a "better" atomic clock as the
master. They would both be similarly influenced by gravity as I said
f/F = kf/kF = f0/F0
which is a chronological tautology and so your argument (about being
the same) cannot be used to define anything.
As I said, Dual Space theory offers a very cogent explanation why a
clock in a gravity well would run slower: because material removed
nearby during creation weakened the region. I allude to it on my
website as the Navier Stokes equation acting in the dual of our vacuum
that is the solid Espace.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
Mr. Dual Space
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
12 Mar 2005 07:28:36 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
There is an infinite redshift at the event horizon of a BH.
Light there would have an infinite wavelength and zero energy.
Energyless Light?
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value.
Not at all.
The Einstein shift is absolute. Light is emitted redshifted.
Since energy is conserved in GTR lights eenrgy can only remain
the same.
It doesn't matter if energyless light will be observed.
It is predicted by the theory.
And more interesting is that if a photon is emitted
close enough to an EH it could redshift its light so much
that the size of the light's wavelength is greater
than the size of the universe.
That is the Redshift Paradox.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 03:16:59 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110677316.633145.278310@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
macromitch@internetCDS.com wrote:
The Einstein shift is the gravitational redshift of light.
There is an infinite redshift at the event horizon of a BH.
Light there would have an infinite wavelength and zero energy.
Energyless Light?
"Redshift" is a _COMPARISON_, not any sort of absolute value.
Not at all.
The Einstein shift is absolute. Light is emitted redshifted.
Since energy is conserved in GTR lights eenrgy can only remain
the same.
It doesn't matter if energyless light will be observed.
It is predicted by the theory.
And more interesting is that if a photon is emitted
close enough to an EH it could redshift its light so much
that the size of the light's wavelength is greater
than the size of the universe.
When I approach you with some speed, it will take some
time for me to reach you.
When I approach you with a small speed, it will take a
long time for me to reach you.
When I approach you with a very small speed, it will
take a very long time for me to reach you.
When I approach you with a very very small speed, it
will take a very very long time for me to reach you.
When I approach you with ever smaller speeds, it will
take an ever longer time for me to reach you.
....
When I approach you with a sufficiently small speed, it
will take *longer than the age of the universe* to reach you.
....
When I don't approach you, or in other words, when I
approach you with zero speed, it will take an infinite
time for me to reach you, in other word, I will never
reach you.
Another matter of language.
That is the Redshift Paradox.
You better give it another name.
I propose we call it the RaemschShit Paradox.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 03:47:10 PM |
|
|
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
That's the redshift paradox ... again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 06:23:49 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
Well how will it ever get created if it is larger than the universe
Professor nickie? It won't, it can't. So that takes care of your idea
right there.
As an example, go into a room that is 12 x 12 feet and cut me a wooden board
that is 23 feet long.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 03:43:20 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message news:pQ4Zd.5892$bh2.3726@fe2.texas.rr.com...
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
Well how will it ever get created if it is larger than the universe
Professor nickie? It won't, it can't. So that takes care of your
idea right there.
Of course it can be created. If you define "wavelength"
as speed divided by frequency, which are two locally
measurable parameters, then by lowering the frequency
you can create a wave with any "wavelength" you like,
even if you don't have the room to measure it.
As an example, go into a room that is 12 x 12 feet and cut
me a wooden board that is 23 feet long.
The "light wave between here and there", is not a physical
object like a wooden board. It is an abstract concept.
It does not have to fit anywhere. Just like radiowaves
don't have to fit onto the antenna of your receiver :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 06:33:50 PM |
|
|
Morituri-|-Max wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
Well how will it ever get created if it is larger than the universe
Ah. Ha!!! You know the paradox.
Admit it!!!
The theory predicts it close enough to a BH's EH.
Thats the Redshift Paradox.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 10:32:32 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110760429.978066.111950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Morituri-|-Max wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can
cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
Well how will it ever get created if it is larger than the
universe
Ah. Ha!!! You know the paradox.
Admit it!!!
The theory predicts it close enough to a BH's EH.
Thats the Redshift Paradox.
Time to put Nick in his place.
Every photon will have a velocity component transverse to the radial
direction, however small initially. This is enhanced as it approaches
the horizon, neatly enabling it to execute a U turn back into the
interrior before it actually hits the horizon.
May we now leave this rancid topic to decay without further
interference from us?
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 12:13:17 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110760429.978066.111950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ah. Ha!!! You know the paradox.
I don't consider your version to be a paradox.. your pop version of science
which is molded by semantic tricks has no bearing on real physics.
Admit it!!!
Admit what? That I'm as pathetic as you are? I'm no genius like Uncle Al
but I can smell BS a mile away.
The theory predicts it close enough to a BH's EH.
Your theory may, but your theory isn't a theory, only an opinion.
Thats the Redshift Paradox.
In your little world it is.. but one couldn't even fit a 23 foot board into
your whole world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 12:19:30 AM |
|
|
Morituri-|-Max wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110760429.978066.111950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ah. Ha!!! You know the paradox.
I don't consider your version to be a paradox.. your pop version of
science
which is molded by semantic tricks has no bearing on real physics.
Admit it!!!
Admit what? That I'm as pathetic as you are? I'm no genius like
Uncle Al
but I can smell BS a mile away.
Blind leader of the blind.
The theory predicts it close enough to a BH's EH.
Your theory may, but your theory isn't a theory, only an opinion.
Caught you right there. You can't say that the Einstein shift
at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole isn't infinite.
It is. That's GR in case you didn't know.
Show the me otherwise.
You can't do it.
Thats the Redshift Paradox.
In your little world it is.. but one couldn't even fit a 23 foot
board into
your whole world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 12:46:55 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
Caught you right there. You can't say that the Einstein shift
at the Event Horizon of a Black Hole isn't infinite.
It is. That's GR in case you didn't know.
Show the me otherwise.
You can't do it.
You are insignificant Raemsch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 01:07:43 AM |
|
|
I know what the theory predicts.
And you can't demostrate otherwise Sam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 12:00:11 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Nick
<macromitch@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 13 Mar 2005 23:07:43 -0800
<1110784063.196002.80210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
I know what the theory predicts.
And you can't demostrate otherwise Sam.
Fine. Give us a prediction. Something along these lines, for
example, might work.
Two rockets launch from Earth. One lands on the Moon and
sets up a transceiver unit with a known delay. The other
keeps going, accelerating as much as it can until its fuel
runs dry, then starts broadcasting regular signals both
to Earth and to the Moon, which relays them.
Assuming that the rocket is now moving away from Earth at
30 km/s = 10^-4 c, and that the Earth and the Moon are in
line (or as nearly in line as one can manage), what delay
would one expect between the signals, once the known delay
of the transceiver and the difference in length between
signal paths is compensated for?
SR: Zero.
GR: Zero.
Newton: The rocket signal lags by 10 milliseconds.
Will this delay increase or decrease as the rocket continues to move
away, assuming the rocket is no longer accelerating using fuel?
SR: No.
GR: No.
Newton: The delay might decrease as the rocket climbs out of the
Sun's gravitational potential well and thereby slows down.
However, that delay may be compensated for because the
light "balls" now get to "roll" down this potential.
Also, what frequency and/or wavelength shifts might be expected
between the signals, assuming the rocket transmits at 1 GHz?
SR: 5 Hz decrease, with a wavelength increase of about 150 nm.
GR: Around 5 Hz decrease, when the moon's gravity is factored in,
depending on exactly where the rocket is. The wavelength shift
is also about 150 nm, and similarly vary. The effect is
not much: one might get a variance of 0.1 Hz if not even less.
Newton: The wavelength (nominally 30 cm) will
increase by about 30 microns. The frequency will
decrease by about 100 kHz.
Not that this is that useful an experiment; we've already learned the
physical workings of most of this by bouncing radar waves off
Venus, by observing pulsars, and by conducting Earthside stuff,
which is lots cheaper. :-) Neutron stars make very good clocks.
A far more esoteric result will (may?) be obtained from
Gravity Probe B, which tests one of GR's predictions that
the Earth's rotation twists the very fabric of spacetime,
by throwing a gyro-stabilized unit off a guide star.
(Disclaimer: I've not checked these calculations in detail
so they may be off.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 04:22:26 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
| "Light has frequency, energy and wavelength, and it can
| be fully characterized by any of these.
| The energy proportional to the frequency.
| The wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency.
|
| Higher frequency => higher energy and shorter wavelength.
| Lower frequency => lower energy and longer wavelength.
|
| So, engineers and physicists often describe the
| "Absence of Light"
| as
| "Light with zero frequency" or
| "Light with zero energy" or
| "Light with infinite wavelength".
| It all just means "No light".
| This is a matter of language.
| You seem to have a problem with this."
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
Nothing must fit. A wavelength is not a physical object.
Wavelength is defined as the distance between two
maxima of the wave. You can swing a one meter rope
so slowly that the "wave" has a wavelength of two meters.
That's the redshift paradox ... again.
I think it is an instance of the Definitions Ignorance Paradox
again.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 04:38:24 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
| "Light has frequency, energy and wavelength, and it can
| be fully characterized by any of these.
| The energy proportional to the frequency.
| The wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency.
|
| Higher frequency => higher energy and shorter wavelength.
| Lower frequency => lower energy and longer wavelength.
|
| So, engineers and physicists often describe the
| "Absence of Light"
| as
| "Light with zero frequency" or
| "Light with zero energy" or
| "Light with infinite wavelength".
| It all just means "No light".
| This is a matter of language.
| You seem to have a problem with this."
I don't buy it.
So everywhere there is an absence of light there really
is light there but with an infinite wavelength?
You would say that?
PoppyCock.
What if it is bigger than the universe?
Where's it gonna fit?
Nothing must fit. A wavelength is not a physical object.
Bing! Bing! Bing!
Bullcocky detector going off.
Light has a physical wavelength. A light wave has a size and you can't
say otherwise. If you do then I know you just show you are a moron
Dirk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
13 Mar 2005 06:27:33 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110753504.839429.79310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Nothing must fit. A wavelength is not a physical object.
Bing! Bing! Bing!
Bullcocky detector going off.
Bing! Bing! Bing! Densitometer going off!
Light has a physical wavelength. A light wave has a size and you can't
say otherwise. If you do then I know you just show you are a moron
What exactly is a "physical" wavelength? Can I use it to hammer a railroad
spike into the ground?
Bing! Bing! Bing! Densitometer going off!
Do you really think word games are going to make you appear more intelligent
than Dirk?
Or do you think if I were to say, tell you that if I fold a piece of paper
in half, punch a pencil through it and tell you that's how my super dooper
FTL starship engine will get me from point a to point b, that I can then
actually push my finger through the paper and it will be in two places at
once if I then unfold the paper, with no finger between the halves of the
paper?
Does your mind really work that simplistically?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Redshift of Light Near a Black Hole |
14 Mar 2005 03:44:19 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110753504.839429.79310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110750430.742575.92120@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just show me where I am wrong.
Sufficiently close to a BH EH the gravitational redshift can cause
light to have an arbitrarily large wavelength.
What if it is infinite? right on the edge?
| "Light has frequency, energy and wavelength, and it can
| be fully characterized by any of these.
| The energy proportional to the frequency.
| The wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency.
|
| Higher frequency => higher energy and shorter wavelength.
| Lower frequency => lower energy and longer wavelength.
|
| So, engineers and physicists often describe the
| "Absence of Light"
| as
| "Light with zero frequency" or
| "Light with zero energy" or
| "Light with infinite wavelength".
| It all just means "No light".
| This is a matter of language.
| You seem to have a problem with this."
I don't buy it.
I am not selling.
I am telling.
This is not open for debate.
| "Light has frequency, energy and wavelength, and it can
| be fully characterized by any of these.
| The energy proportional to the frequency.
| The wavelength is inversely proportional to the frequency.
|
| Higher frequency => higher energy and shorter wavelength.
| Lower frequency => lower energy and longer wavelength.
|
| So, engineers and physicists often describe the
| "Absence of Light"
| as
| "Light with zero frequency" or
| "Light with zero energy" or
| "Light with infinite wavelength".
| It all just means "No light".
| This is a matter of language.
| You seem to have a problem with this."
| "When I approach you with some speed, it will take some
| time for me to reach you.
| When I approach you with a small speed, it will take a
| long time for me to reach you.
| When I approach you with a very small speed, it will
| take a very long time for me to reach you.
| When I approach you with a very very small speed, it
| will take a very very long time for me to reach you.
| When I approach you with ever smaller speeds, it will
| take an ever longer time for me to reach you.
| ...
| When I approach you with a sufficiently small speed, it
| will take *longer than the age of the universe* to reach you.
| ...
| When I don't approach you, or in other words, when I
| approach you with zero speed, it will take an infinite
| time for me to reach you, in other word, I will never
| reach you.
| Another matter of language."
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
