/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14656907]

Wait, gravity can bend light?

[Anonymous No.14656910]

>>14656907
no

[Anonymous No.14657076]

>>14656907
no, light goes straight along bent space

[Anonymous No.14657087]

>>14656907

[Anonymous No.14657128]

Everything is unconfirmed theories.

If you aren't stupid, the first thing you will notice is that your intuition is nearly always wrong. When an apple falls down from a tree, it is not really falling "down," it is moving towards the Earth.

The Earth appears flat to the eye, but it is not really flat. Intuition is a monkey attribute.

Empty space is not uniform, directions like up and down, themselves, can bend, by gravity, and light moves in a straight line through bent space.

A black hole event horizon marks the point where all directions point towards the black hole, east, north, south, west, they are all bent to point towards the black hole because its gravity is too strong.

If you move east, you are moving towards it, yet if you move west, you are also moving towards it, all directions point towards it space and time and reality itself is bent around the object. even light bends so much that it moves directly towards it. But from outside of the event horizon light just bends around it.

[Anonymous No.14657131]

>>14657128
>If you move east, you are moving towards it, yet if you move west, you are also moving towards it, all directions point towards it space and time and reality itself is bent around the object.
Sounds an awful lot like time

[Anonymous No.14657136]

>>14657131
and op's mom

[Anonymous No.14657149]

>>14656907

no big deal, so can a glass of water.

[Anonymous No.14657151]

>>14656907

No, relativity is just a theory. not a law like newton. Once we find more dark baryons at the supersymmetric james webb collider it will become proven as a theorem
source: MTW chapter 2 page 5

[Anonymous No.14657813]

>>14656907
no, gravity bends space. light go through bent space

[Anonymous No.14657925]

>>14657813
>light go through bent space
The reasons the physical semantics of this may confusing, is thinking of light as possibly 1 single long thing

Imagine a string with labels A to Z labeled on it. You bend the string around a curve, and it can be said the string is bent.

You and others are saying light does not bend around a curve, because light is never a long thing, like that string.

Light is more of many small things.

So it's more like dropping marbles down a bent pvc pipe, you wouldnt say the marbles bent. You would say the path the marbles travel is bent

[Anonymous No.14658186]

>gravity is a force only acting on particles with mass
>photons have no mass
>therefore the trajectories of photons are determined by gravity
Makes perfect sense. Thanks Einstein.

[Anonymous No.14658204]

>>14658186
That's Newton. GR doesn't predict that gravity only acts on masses.

[Anonymous No.14658241]

yes , as it is not possible to distinguish gravity in a freely falling body, if you use a flashlight inside an elevator you will see that the light beam hits the elevator in a position that is not in a straight line with the beginning, meaning that gravity bend the light

[Anonymous No.14658245]

>>14657087

[Anonymous No.14658286]

>>14658186
There is no space in the universe that is not the gravity field.

Only mass effects the gravity field.

If the gravity field is warped in a location, and light is traveling toward that location, there is literally nowhere for the light to go, or avoid the warp.

[Anonymous No.14658296]

>>14656907
welcome to the 20th ceentury

[Anonymous No.14658304]

>>14656907
welcome to the 20th century

[Anonymous No.14659354]

>>14657087
Cute!

[frenanon No.14660142]

>>14658241
Or, the accelaration/rotation of the earth/elevator will effect the measurements.

[frenanon No.14660147]

>>14658286
>If the gravity field is warped in a location, and light is traveling toward that location, there is literally nowhere for the light to go, or avoid the warp.
u wot m8?

[Anonymous No.14660167]

Gravity may not even be real. Fuck mannnnnnnn. I'm so glad I'm not smart enough to be a physicist. It seems frustrating as fuck.

[Anonymous No.14660209]

>>14660147
When you are under the ocean, for all intents and purposes, "water exists everywhere"

When you are flying in the air for all intents and purposes "air exists everywhere"

When you are in space, for intents and purposes, The Gravity Field exists everywhere.

The gravity fields body reacts differently to different quantites of mass. (Just as water and air field do; consider a kid vs a fat man cannonballing in a pool).

A galaxy is a fat man, stars and planets are kids, cannonballing in the gravity field pool.

Space is full of the gravity field.
Space for all intents and purposes is the gravity field.

Light can travel nowhere but in/on/through the gravity field.

If there is warp in the way of lights path, it does not pierce through the warp as if the warp is not there. The warp is what space is there. The light travels the path of the warp.

As a floating ball in the pool bobs up and down after the cannonball

[Anonymous No.14660218]

>>14660142
So your saying, if you know the speed of light. If you compare the time it takes for a laser to hit a detector going this way
------------->
To one going this way
<-----------

You should be able to tell the velocity the light sources are traveling?

[Anonymous No.14660278]

>>14660209
>When you are under the ocean, for all intents and purposes, "water exists everywhere"
No, water doesn't exist where there is no water
>When you are flying in the air for all intents and purposes "air exists everywhere"
No, it doesn't exist where there is no air
>When you are in space, for intents and purposes, The Gravity Field exists everywhere.
No, it doesn't exist where there is no gravity

[Anonymous No.14660283]

>>14657087

[Anonymous No.14660330]

>>14656907
Gravity isn't a force, it's the curvature of space
>>14657128
The more mass an object has, the more it resists the expansion of the universe, resulting in a curvature with a four-dimensional "down". The more down something feels, the closer it is to the geometric center of the universe, relative to our body. So your intuition is actually correct: Whatever feels like down is in fact down.

[Anonymous No.14660543]

>>14660278
>No, it doesn't exist where there is no gravity
List the types of things that exist where the gravity field doesn't

[frenanon No.14660545]

>>14660209
I think most of your post is based on premises that I don't agree with.

>>14660218
>So your saying, if you know the speed of light. If you compare the time it >takes for a laser to hit a detector going this way
>------------->
>To one going this way
><-----------
>You should be able to tell the velocity the light sources are traveling?
Yes. No. Sort of.
I'm a little distracted right now, so I don't have the mental clarity to articulate it properly, but it sounds like we're kind of on the same page.
But basically I believe that these slight discrepancies in "velocity" are what we currently refer to as "Time Dilation".
Just like how GPS(btw, I personally am under the belief that GPS "satellites" are actually terrestrial signal relays, and are not orbital satellites, but that's another discussion...) is purportedly affected by a gradient in "Gravity", could actually just be due to miscalculating the variables such as Earth's angular-velocity, as well as angular rotation(I'm not sure if those are the correct terms I'm looking for btw).
But basically my thinking is that if Earth's rotation were oriented differently, if the spin were faster/slower, and/or its momentum through space were changed, then our GPS system might be effected in such ways that we would chalk up to "Time Dilation".

[Anonymous No.14660548]

>>14660278
Ok try to respond to this part;

The gravity fields body reacts differently to different quantites of mass. (Just as water and air field do; consider a kid vs a fat man cannonballing in a pool).

A galaxy is a fat man, stars and planets are kids, cannonballing in the gravity field pool.

Space is full of the gravity field.
Space for all intents and purposes is the gravity field.

Light can travel nowhere but in/on/through the gravity field.

If there is warp in the way of lights path, it does not pierce through the warp as if the warp is not there. The warp is what space is there. The light travels the path of the warp.

As a floating ball in the pool bobs up and down after the cannonball

[Anonymous No.14660550]

>>14660543
He's trolling, you can ignore that poster.

[Anonymous No.14660560]

>>14657128
>muh black hole
why do you bring this shit into an explanation that is only complicated by its inclusion

[Anonymous No.14660568]

>>14660545
There is proposed time dialation due to gravity, and time dialation due to velocity.

Time dialation due to gravity, is because a proposed velocities eta is altered by a winding road.

Two equal velocities. Two equal straight aways from A to B.

The one traveling on track X will arrive quicker than track Y if track Y has a curve in it. ( There is a straight away on track Y, from point A to B, above the ground, but the velocity is traveling on the ground, on which there is a curve in the road)

The velocity doesn't slow down, but the time it takes to travel A to B does. It's expected ETA

[Anonymous No.14660569]

>>14660568
>reddit spacing
didn't read lol

[frenanon No.14660571]

>>14660330
Ok, how about this:
What if the Earth's rotation produces an EM field which pulls things in, and keeps the atmosphere from just completely disappearing into space.
What if the Earth's rotation "pulls" the atmosphere "down"(towards the core), and this creates atmospheric pressure, which we experience as gravity.
What if this field is rather weak outside of the crust, but once you start getting closer, it becomes exponentially stronger?
Could our core be like a "mini sun", where the extreme strength of the field is consolidated to allow nuclear reactions to generate geothermal heat, which radiates from the core->mantel->crust; thus facilitating geologic activity?

[Anonymous No.14660576]

>>14660571
>"mini sun"

[frenanon No.14660578]

>>14660543
>List the types of things that exist where the gravity field doesn't
I mean, that would be difficult to do because many of the observable phenomena that are attributed to "gravity", may be explainable through other means.

[frenanon No.14660592]

>>14660548
>Light can travel nowhere but in/on/through the gravity field.
But I don't understand why you think that is a given fact.
Can't gravity be a force that has a finite influence in regards to its source?
And if not, then why can't something like EM fill the role of gravity?
I mean, a wooden block isn't going to react with a neodymium magnet very well- but that doesn't mean the EM force isn't present between the two objects, right?

[frenanon No.14660608]

>>14660576
>"mini sun"
I'm aware my nomenclature isn't particularly admirable to those educated on the subject, but as I said, my mind is currently elsewhere, and my formal education with (((science))) is probably High-School-tier at best.

I'm more than willing to hear any dissenting opinions and objections you or others may have regarding the topic, as long as you are willing to discuss it in good-faith.

[Anonymous No.14660691]

>>14660592
It all starts from the idea of action at a distance.

Imagine matter existing in a volume of actual nothingness. There is no way for a body to influence another body at a distance, by only contributing Nothing to an attempted influence.

So think of water and air. We can be in a pool, and you can make a floating ball near me, move, at a distance, just by splashing near you.

You can make my ear be touched at a distance, by splashing the air near you.

So we are forced to think some similar action at a distance mechanism is going on, for the Sun's body, to "touch" the earths body, and jupiter and Neptune and Pluto and asteroids bodies, at a distance, without the Sun's body touching these, but by "splashing" in a common pool these bodies are in.

There is no reason to assume that traveling to any particular location, all the sudden there is no pool at all, that this action at a distance mass effect would no longer work.

But we have never done experiments in between galaxies so who knows in what capacity the gravity field exists there.

[frenanon No.14660698]

>>14660691
Ok, that's fine, I can kind of accept that.
But that sounds more like Aether as opposed to "Gravity bending space-time", no?

[Anonymous No.14660789]

>>14660698
>as opposed to "Gravity bending space-time", no?
There is no difference between space time and the gravity field. Space time is a word idea used to measure the different rates at which matter and energy travel and effect one another via gravity field.

The intersting mysterious confusing thing about it to me, is how light, EM field fits in and among the gravity field.

Generally, there is:
Galaxies (stars + planets)
Gravity field
EM field


There are objects and mediums.
There are mediums, and the various waves, wakes, warps of mediums


EM radiation propagates.
But the entirety of the EM field is not EM radiation propagating.

There are warps in the gravity field around masses
But the entirety of the gravity field is not only warps.


Stars and planets (and other atomic, molecular, subatomic debris) take up the amount of space in the universe they do.

Gravity field and EM field take up the rest of the volume of the universe.

If the total universe is 100% volume.
And stars, planets (debris) takes up ____%

What percents respectively do Gravity field and EM field take up?

Very interesting and mysterious to me how Both the EM field and Gravity field exist at every point in space, where stars and planets (etc) are not.

The Gravity field and the EM field could not occupy exactly every same point in space, or else they would be identically the same thing, or, they some how exist alternatingly next to one another at every point in space, like a checkerboard pattern.

[frenanon No.14660805]

>>14660789
>There are warps in the gravity field around masses
Maybe those "warps" are just how the EM field is interacting with other EM fields.
>If the total universe is 100% volume.
>And stars, planets (debris) takes up ____%
Idk.
I don't even know if it's possible for us to know desu.
Not even sure why that's relevant, no offense.

[Anonymous No.14660812]

>>14657076
Is it actually whatever space is that bends or do our eyes detect something that looks like a bend?

[Anonymous No.14660855]

>>14660805
Just intersting to wonder, ponder;

Either the Gravity field and the EM field are the same exact thing (that just effect things differently on different scales) or they are inherently seperate different things.

Let's assume they are seperate things for a bit.


What would the odds be the Gravity field and the EM field take up exactly the same amount of universal volume?

What would the odds and theoretic reasons as to why and how; the gravity field would take up X amount more of the universes volume, or vice versa for EM field.

How would they exist at every other point next to each other throughout the universe?

You go to a point in the universe, gravity works and EM works.

You go to another point, gravity works and em works.

You go to another point, gravity works and em works.

Every point you go to, gravity field and em field are there.

How are two fundamentally different things, so existing throughout all space, and making perfect room for each other at every other point?

[Anonymous No.14660858]

>>14660812
You ever do that wiggling the pencil horizontally between your fingers trick?

[Anonymous No.14660884]

>>14656907
No Nigger Gravity doesn't exist. The Earth is flat and its all boyance. Remember water doesn't curve. Nb4 im dumb this is what the flat earth people say I don't believe.

[frenanon No.14660894]

>>14660884
Most of us have just given up with you guys.

[Anonymous No.14660897]

>>14660858
>Horizontally
I did picrel

[Anonymous No.14660999]

No. Don't be stupid. Gravity bends spacetime. The light keeps going straight.

[Anonymous No.14661013]

>>14656907
I thought the cross-boarders stopped posting already? It's been a few days since the images.

[Anonymous No.14661026]

this just shows that the majority of people have no idea how to include time into spacial reasoning

[Anonymous No.14661053]

>>14660147
what about stellar mass black holes in our galaxy in binary systems with other stars, why can we see the other star and if they are close enough why can't we detect them moving at 0.51C via parallax?
(fastest object we have ever recorded was a star moving at 0.03C near sagitarius A*)

[Anonymous No.14661094]

>>14660999
>No. Don't be stupid. Gravity bends spacetime. The light keeps going straight.
If you start driving down a road straight, and then the road curves, and then straightens out, would you say you were driving straight the entire time?

[Anonymous No.14661121]

>>14661094
from the perspective of light it always travels the shortest distance between two points

[Anonymous No.14661204]

*sung to the tune of nanny nanny poo poo*

Intellectually dishonest intellectually dishonest

[Anonymous No.14661294]

>>14660209
>>14658286
then why would an extremely high concentration of photons also bend space?

[Anonymous No.14661303]

>>14656907
Your mom is so fat, its the only object known to man who allows a 26 Billion years glimpse into the past.

[Anonymous No.14661411]

>>14661294
I wasn't entirely aware that occured. Maybe I was but forgot.

What are the examples of this happening, the evidence

[Anonymous No.14661439]

>>14661094
it would be like driving straight but you didn't account for the curvature of the earth so your path actually bent a little

[Anonymous No.14661481]

Help me out /sci/

I remember a documentary from long ago (might have been called arrow of time) where they theorized a hypothetical machine made of high powered lasers in a funnel shape. This is where memory if fuzzy, long time ago and half asleep when I saw this, but IIRC they said light generates it's own gravity field so enough of it can bend space, and with enough of it in this funnel shape, they can send single bits of data down the funnel, and it "in theory" they claim would travel backwards in time. I know I'm butchering the theory and science behind this, but does this sound familiar to anyone? Does light really have gravity?

[Anonymous No.14661625]

I just was walking down a street next to some fast cars.

When the cars would pass it would be like a second or more later untill the wind from the car swelled up and hit me (yall familiar with this right).

Might gravity be something like this? The Sun is the fast moving car, it zips by, it's constantly zipping through the gravity field, so the gravity field wind is constantly swelling up some time and distance behind it, and smaller masses feel this tug toward the direction of the sun

[Anonymous No.14661641]

>>14657128
I would simply turn around and walk away from the black hole

[Anonymous No.14661645]

"gravitational lensing" is just refraction

[Anonymous No.14661687]

>>14661411
general relativity

[Anonymous No.14661964]

>>14661625
OooooOoO might be something to this, yet again

[Anonymous No.14661970]

>>14661645
Is refraction by definition not to do with atomic material?

Or are you saying that the gravity field does in essence what a prism does to light?

The atoms change its path of travel. The gravity field changes it's path of travel

[Anonymous No.14661982]

>>14657128
>When an apple falls down from a tree, it is not really falling "down," it is moving towards the Earth.
human perspective and human words describing an event is " falling down " stop being a pseud fag you dumb bitch

[Anonymous No.14662015]

>>14661094
A lateral force never acts on the light. Anything following any path that never has a lateral force applied to it would be described as going straight, would it not? Or do you want to break all sorts of shit?

>But gravity
Is an apparent force.

[Anonymous No.14662829]

>>14662015
I don't know, can light be reflected 90 degrees off a mirror around a corner?

I know we are not saying the lights body it self bent, but it's path from A to B is not straight.

You can say it hits the mirror at a straight line and reflects off at a straight line

But it's total path is not straight.

[Anonymous No.14662837]

>>14660571
What the fuck did I just read?

[Anonymous No.14662853]

>>14662015
>>14662829
And further more, the gravity field situation may be nothing like this mirror situation.

Even if it's path is altered less than 90 degrees, it may be done not by atomic reflection means;

Fundamentally the gravity fields intimate field connection with EM, may by not traveling light in an absolutely straight path A to B, and not bending lights body like a rod, may be forcing light to travel a curved route; like water down a curve pipe.

Imagine an ocean wave heading toward us, and you place some wood board at some angle between it and the shore. You would to some degree prevent a part of it from traveling it's straight trajectory path, and how would you classify the waves misdirection?

[Anonymous No.14662875]

>>14657087
Wait why is lensed light bluer than the object creating a lense?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Did they color it wrong?

[Anonymous No.14662885]

>>14657131
Actually space inside the event horizon is sometimes described as "time-like"

[Anonymous No.14662891]

>>14656907
Gravity is just another scam just like most of soience, made up abstract garbage, coming from the mind of arrogant white coat midwit soientists.

[Anonymous No.14663714]

>>14662853
>Imagine an ocean wave heading toward us, and you place some wood board at some angle between it and the shore. You would to some degree prevent a part of it from traveling it's straight trajectory path, and how would you classify the waves misdirection?
Someone answer

>>14662829
This too

[Anonymous No.14663745]

>>14656907
This is a very insightful question, because the elementary representation of gravity that most students are exposed to are the laws of Newton. These laws posit that gravity is a consequence of mass attracting mass, which works for most everyday applications.

We are also taught that photons are massless, so how could a massless particle be effected by gravity?

This is actually an observation that supports a more nuanced representation put forward by Einstein, which explains gravity as a consequence of mass effecting the curvature of spacetime itself. It is the photon travelling along the bent path in spacetime.